Posted on 05/30/2006 6:27:27 AM PDT by Reaganesque
I'm flashing back to the Brokeback Mountain threads. Remember, that film opened on 6 screens, and then 29, before going into wider release.
Stage 1: "It's a dud. [Good children's movie] is so much better, it has pulled in so much more money."
Stage 2: "It's going to drop off."
Stage 3: "So it's breaking even. I bet they're making up numbers."
Stage 4: "Narnia is taking in so much more money."
Stage 5: "So what if it's doing better than [good children's movie]. That doesn't make it better!"
Stage 6: Randy Quaid sues the studio for higher pay because he took a small paycheck on the expectation BBM was an arts film that would flop, not earn big profits.
It's kind of amusing. Most films that attract enough publicity to generate multiple threads, will attract enough of an audience to break even or profit.
That's not reality.
Sophie neither healed nor transmuted in the book.
"Cars" looks like the aggressively cutesy Chevron marketing car got hold of a camera and filmed its friends. Ugh.
I'm saying that Sony spent 100-125M to promote this movie, an amount comparable to the original production budget.
I can see with my eyes that the media buy in the NYC market alone must have cost over $30M.
Your 350M figure means that you assume that 100% of the money spent on a ticket goes straight to Sony's bottom line. And that is not reality.
BoxOfficeMojo.com use to keep 'marketing cost' stats (they dont anymore for some reason), and I remember they use to amount to around 25% of a typical blockbuster film. If the film cost 100 million to make, they'd spend about 25 million to market it.
Theyve (boxofficemojo) stopped including that in their stats though, so I guess its a number thats hard to pin down. Its not close to as much production costs though, unless its a movie with a very low production budget.
Its PIXAR.. of course its going to be Cute... I mean come on.. if you are going to be shocked that a PIXAR film is cutsie you might as well be shocked that a Michael Moore film is staged, or a porn has fornication.
I think the promotional spending on this movie is proportionally several times that of a normal movie. I've never seen a PR assault like this before. At one point I could look out my office window and see three separate billboards for it.
Or as the atheists call it "Roots" -- Jay Leno
This is definitely not a movie anyone will be paying to see more than once.
After I told him "No" he responded, "Didn't see the movie neither, but I read the book. My daughter-in-law gave it to me. Gave it to me just to rile me up. And one thing's clear. That writer don't know sheep or sheepherders. Wouldn't know the difference between a sheep or a goat neither. And I should know, cause I used to be a sheepherder when I was a punk kid.
It cost $125 million to produce, less than $50 million to promote. So Sony's investment is $175 million.
The general rule of thumb is a 50-50 split between gross and net, exhibitors and distributors (many specifics vary, but the early weeks are weighted toward the distributor - sometimes as much as 90-10).
So anything above $350 million is profit for Sony. The picture has grossed $450 million world wide - already. It is already a huge success for Sony. This film will generate $600 - $800 million from all markets by the time it is done.
It's a smash. It's also an ugly anti-Christian screed, but some folks like that.
Depends on the movie. But for big-budget pix like DaVinci, marketing costs are much less than production costs.
Sony did not spend that kind of money to promote the picture. At least, none of their financial analysts with whom I have talked has admitted to such. The picture is already in the black. At least for the gross players! (Net players never get their monkey points to pay off).
It's already swum, domestic grosses are above production cost. Yeah it's fading faster than they would have liked but the foreign box office is picking up the slack. And when you figure that most Hollywood analysts thought it was going to make around $50 mil opening weekend and instead it made $77 it's holding together nicely.
No the standard drop off is 30%, 50% is a bad thing, unless it over performed opening weekend.
Believe it or not, Over the Hedge was the second computer-animated cartoon to have an over-caffeinated squirrel. The first was Hoodwinked, which came out some months earlier.
Just keeping the facts straight on the over-caffeinated-squirrel scene.
Hollywood releases too many movies for that kind of thing to happen anymore, in Tucson one theater (with only two screens) showed Raiders for a year, then after pulling it for a month they brought it back for a "return engagement" that lasted about 3 months. It was great, there was a running gag any time we went to that mall, "wanna see Raiders again?"
DVC isn't a summer blockbuster, it never was really intended to be. It's a book cash-in, but doesn't have the action of a true summer blockbuster. I think everybody involved is happy with the revenue stream, I doubt any but the most insane predictors were thinking it would do much better than it has.
BOM still does marketing cost info, but not until the movie has finished its run, and it's always just an estimate since nobody in Hollywood ever admits how much they spend on marketing.
I didn't see or read either, but I thought Larry McMurtry had a good reputation. Weird.
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.