[BrooklynGOP]

It cost $54 million to make, and yet it grossed less than $4 million in its premiere weekend - a number that would have to be multiplied by five if the film were destined to make a profit.

Fuzzy math??

[Chad Fairbanks]

Journalist Math...

[KarlInOhio]

They figure that they would need $20M on the first weekend to be on the path to break $54M for its entire run. I don't know if that includes TV, video and foreign distributions.

[discostu]

No, movies tend to drop off about 1/3 of the revenue every week, so if it had made $20 mil in the first week you get $14 mil in week 2, $10 mil week 3, 7 in week 4, 5 in week 5. Which brings it to profitability with maybe 1 week to spare.

Although this summer the drop offs are much more dramatic, and earlier in the year the drop offs were lower. But the rule of thumb is a 1/3 drop per week.

[clamboat]

Fuzzy math??

No, fuzzy reading skills. The key word is "destined".

The reporter is speculating (based on experience, presumably) that film needed to make at least 5 times its opening weekend take, or $20 million, in order to have a hope of ever making a profit. That doesn't mean it is profitable in the first weekend.

[Salgak]

No. . .if it was going to be a profitable movie, it would have had to gross $20m million or more on opening weekend. . .

[dmz]

nope, fuzzy freeper thinking. The movie does not need to make a profit in its first weekend, and the article does not say this. did you notice the word "destined" in the article, as in "ultimately".

how well a movie does in its first weekend is a prime indicator of how well it will do in its theatre run.