Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Aslan Poised for Christmas Box-Office Throne (Kong Weak; Gays lame)
Info from Box Office Mojo; Exhibitor Relations ^ | 12/22/05 | Dangus

Posted on 12/22/2005 7:09:38 PM PST by dangus

"The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe" expanded its daily box office take again from Tuesday to Wednesday, despite the wide releases of two fims, one of which was very family-oriented. Three more movies will enter wide release of Friday, but they are expected to neither rival Narnia's box-office receipts, or draw movie-goers from the same market as Narnia. The result is that Narnia seems to be inevitably this year's Christmas box-office champion. (As an aside, if you haven't seen this movie, see it; it is simply fantastic. It's actually unfortunate that it has drawn comparison to the excellent, but slow and dark Lord of the Rings trilogy.)

Narnia beat King Kong, by about $70,000; totalling $127 million; Kong's $4.9 million yesterday continues its disappointing slide. So far, the movie has only made $82 million dollars; it cost over $200 million to make.

The surprisingly political and lightly promoted "Fun With Dick and Jane" opened dismally for a Jim Carey movie, making less than $3.8 million. "Cheaper By the Dozen 2" made only a little over $2.5 million. The movie is a sequel to a movie which made $135 million.

At #5, "The Family Stone" continued to slide, down to $1.5 million ($17.5 million total); Harry Potter is faring better in a Christmas-minded audience than it has lately, making $1 million; #7 "Syriana" slides further to $745,000; #8 "Walk The Line" collapses 25%, adding only $435,000 to its otherwise impressive $84 million take; #9 "Pride and Prejudice" continues to rebound, making $380,000.

The last spot seems somewhat contentious. Exhibitor Relations gives the tenth spot to "Yours, Mine and Ours," down a whopping 45%, probably due to its similarity to "Cheaper by the Dozen 2," making only $332,000. That means "Brokeback Mountain" made less, but Box Office Mojo, which has been heavily promoting BM awards it the tenth spot with $340,000. Either way, the box office take for Brokeback Mountain has been plummeting.

Friday, the "The Ringer" and Steven Spielberg's "Munich" come out; neither are expected to have a major box-office impact. "Memoirs of a Geisha" and "Brokeback Mountain" also expand further. On Sunday, "Rumor Has It," "Casanova," "Wolf Creek," and "The Producers" are all released. Previews of The Producers have been very weak, while Casanova and Rumor are both merely art-house films. Of the lot, Wolf Creek and Munich seem to have the potential to surprise and become box-office factors, but both are very adult moves, not the sort of family fare to compete with Narnia.


TOPICS: TV/Movies
KEYWORDS: barebackmountin; boxoffice; brokebackmountain; christmas; gayagenda; hollywood; homosexualagenda; moviereview; narnia; nelsonsayshaha; waronchristmas
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-32 last
To: dangus
>> How can BBM be in "10 more than last week" << Hmmm... a cut and paste error? It was supposed to be "10 more than three times."

LOL! You're kidding, right? "10 more than three times"? I was born at night, but not last night. > What's that, the new math? Last week it earned approx. $2.250, this week it earned $3--that's only per week, not cumulative. <

Dude, you were wrong--you're just trying to make it look like you weren't. Either way, you're STILL wrong--the movie made MORE this Friday than last.

>> Where do you get 70%? And 90% <

The numbers are RIGHT THERE on the Box Office Mojo link--it's down 2% PER THEATER. Also, to make your point, you keep shifting your base of observation from theater to market. You have to maintain consistency when comparing numbers.

>> How could it be a "second run" movie if it wasn't yet available yet in any of these markets? <

It's in @200 theaters--that's not a theater in every market, unless you're going to argue there are only 4 markets per state.

>> That's just a figure snatched out of the air << Snatched out of the air? Hardly 5 x 40 = 200. So, 217 is more than 40 times 5.

LOL This is funny. It's interesting how you have to carefully cut around my post to make your point. The figure you were comparing as if it meant something is what is snatched out of the air.

From here on out, you seem to be deliberately missing my point.

Afraid you're the one missing the point. You obviously have no idea about these matters other than a few episodes of Extra.

>> Last week: @$2.3; this week so far: @$3. << I'm perplexed. You seem to be ignroant that I'm talking Friday-to-Thursday, the typical movie week.

What's interesting is that you've taken on a very insulting tone because you don't like that your lack of understanding of the facts--like those you chose not to reply to--shows you're trying to make the financial facts match your desire. The "typical movie week" is merely for bookkeeping purposes for the studio and doesn't help if you're looking to see the progression of a movie's box office performance from week to week by the day--say, Friday to Friday, as you've done.

And then, on a Saturday night, you refer to "this week so far." And you recognize that I'm referring to this coming Sunday as part of this week.

Uh, yeah. So Saturday (yesterday) would be part of THIS week, just as you say Sunday (today) is part of THIS week. And...?

Last Friday: $765,000. This Friday: $745,000. That's DOWN $20,000.

You cut out--I'm sure completely by accident--BOTH mentions that movies commonly drop slightly when they go wide. You also conveniently ignore that you said BBM dropped 70%--dropping $20k from $765k is 70%? On what planet?

Now, if we ARE talking Sunday-Friday, it's pretty damn pathetic if its up only marginally after expanding to 40 times more theaters.

Kong's per screen is $2249; BBM's per screen is $3433. Pathetic? Please don't go into accounting.

>> I've never seen a number other than @$15mil. <

Funny how you beg indulgence on your massive number foul-ups yet you blatantly misquote me here. I wrote "a number other than @$15mil"--$14 mil is @$15mil--it's a lot more sensible than that "10 more than 3 times" whopper of yours.

Let's see your proof that it's NOT always been @14-15 mil (feel better?).

>> The budget's been $180 mil as long as I've been reading about it. <

More prissiness instead of a rational discussion.

December 5, 2005 latimes.com : Business : Entertainment Business In 'Narnia,' Tycoon Seeks Blockbuster With a Message By Claudia Eller, Times Staff Writer

The Denver-based multibillionaire, who made a fortune in oil, natural gas, railroads, telecommunications and real estate, has spent $90 million — half the film's $180-million budget — to produce the screen adaptation of the children's classic "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe." http://www.latimes.com/business/custom/cotown/la-fi-anschutz5dec05,0,2989796. story?coll=la-tot-promo

Let's see your evidence that this budget figure has changed since December 5.

If a movie hasn't been available for viewing in an area, it's not a "Second run" even rhetorically. << You seem to not understand that there are a lot more theaters than markets, and that most of the added theaters are in markets where the movie is already playing.

That's a ridiculous comment--there are only 69 markets in the country?

It's in pretty much all of the top 100 markets already.

When it was only in 69 theaters, how could it be in "pretty much all of the top 100 markets"--one theater per each of those top 100 markets? That still doesn't mean "pretty much all".

And if a theater is not in the top 100 markets, it's not likely to sell thousands of tickets for a gay cowboy movie.Try to understand my basic point: The liberals and fudge-packers hailed the initial showings as indicating a triumphant showing, because they ridiculously relied on a per-screen take as if it were indicative of future box office success. Which would prove more indicative of the show's final success, the per-screen take, or the total take?

That's a ludicrous assessment to make at this point in the movie's theatrical run. Again, please don't get into accounting. A per screen at this point--200 theaters, in your words, in pretty much all the top 100 markets. Kong is in all those markets. It's foolish to say "Ha, Kong's making more!" because it's in so many more theaters, so look at the per screen and see which movie has the enthusiasm now that BBM has expanded. It's two completely different ways of marketing--Kong wants to make tons of money in the first couple of weeks before the hype ebbs, BBM wants to BUILD the hype and go longer. You simply can't make these assessments, as much as you'd like to to prove your point, because there's not enough to go on. What evidence we DO have disproves your point; even though its gone into more theaters, BBM is beating every other movie in the top 13 on a per screen basis. You seem ignorant of the importance of that.

When it opened, it made a hell of a lot of money per screen, and ridiculously little money overall,

That's what it would appear to someone who doesn't understand how films are marketed--a movie on five screens making that kind of money isn't making a "ridiculously little" amount. Those numbers meant a great deal to those who understand them.

... because it opened on a very small number of very big theaters. On the 9th, it showed in 5 theaters and made $191,000. On the 16th, it showed in 69 theaters and made $765,000. On the 23rd, it showed in 217 theaters and made $745,000. That means, its PER-SCREEN take dropped from $38,309 to $3,433, or more than 90%. It played in 40 times more theaters, 217 compared to 5, but made less than four times as much money &45,000 compared to $191,000. It even played in more than three times more theaters Friday, than it did the previous week, yet it's Friday take was less than the previous Friday.

Because the audience was concentrated so far, to build word of mouth. The scenario you describe as being a huge failure is a huge success, and will be the yardstick for future releases of small films. You can't seem to grasp that this is not a Kong or Narnia, and those movies would die if promoted this way just as BBM would have died if pushed wide too soon.

So which said more about its box-office success, its total gross, or its per-screen take. I had argued its total gross did. And since its total gross went DOWN even while the number of screens went up, I was proven correct.

No, you're not correct, because you miss the point so completely. You're trying to "micro-track" a movie that's doing even better than its production company planned. The per screen number is going to drop as the movie becomes more available--that's completely logical. (If only one store in your community sells Pepsi, its sales will go down once Pepsi is sold in other stores--but in the long run, Pepsi will be making out better, won't they?)

You said yourself that you can't go on per-screen to determine the cumulative box office, yet the thing has just opened wide and you're using per-screen to say "Ha! It's a flop!" You simply don't understand the business, though having these numbers available on the internet might make you think you do.

Now that we've both done our sniping, how about we continue this without the insults and stick to the facts, which are on my side, whether you like that or not.

21 posted on 12/25/2005 4:11:44 AM PST by Darkwolf377 (Warning: Adult language, but great Christmas message: http://foamy.libertech.net/noxmas.swf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: dangus
P.S. One thing that's really throwing your prediction off is that BBM is a slow-building arthouse movie which is going to keep earning after the Christmas season is over. This week a bunch of new releases pushed it out of the top ten, as noted in Box Office Prophets. That may be one thing throwing off your predictions; some movies that won't be around long are here now, and after the theaters free up, BBM will still be earning.

Let's see how BBM earns when its run is over. As I noted (and you seemed to have missed), this is a @$14 mil (plus prints and advertising) movie, and so far it's earned 1/3 of its intial cost back--something King Kong has done, too. The difference is, it's not going to take much more for BBM to get into profit.

If I were an investor, I'd rather have a chunk of a movie that was closer to getting into profit than a blockbuster that was looking to take a long time to get there.

22 posted on 12/25/2005 4:17:56 AM PST by Darkwolf377 (Warning: Adult language, but great Christmas message: http://foamy.libertech.net/noxmas.swf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: dangus
You are thinking way too much about this movie. It's a small indie with a small budget. It was never advertised as a blockbuster. And it will make a profit.

I'm more outraged about the revisionist films of Clooney and Spielberg.

23 posted on 12/25/2005 10:17:52 AM PST by CaptainK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: CaptainK

>> You are thinking way too much about this movie. <<

Probably... but it is a movie being raved about as likely to sweep the Oscars.

>> And it will make a profit. <<

If it does get a ton of nominations, yes it will. I was careful to qualify my predictions with "prior to the academy award nominations." But if that is HOW it manages to make it into the black, it'll be at the expense of any credibility the Oscars still have.


24 posted on 12/25/2005 12:30:28 PM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377

>> "10 more than three times"? I was born at night, but not last night <<

Do the math.

>> Dude, you were wrong--you're just trying to make it look like you weren't. Either way, you're STILL wrong--the movie made MORE this Friday than last. <<

Do they celebrate Christmas on your planet? They do on my planet, where $745,000 is less than $765,000.

>> it's down 2% PER THEATER. <<

Um, $3,433 is a LOT less than $38,309. Not just 2% less. That 2% is not per theater; it's 2% overall.

>> It's in @200 theaters--that's not a theater in every market, unless you're going to argue there are only 4 markets per state. <<

No, it's not in every market; it's in 217 theaters in about 100 markets. I guess you don't realize what a market is. There are 190 "markets" in the US, excluding rural areas, which comprise 85% of the population.

>> What's interesting is that you've taken on a very insulting tone <<

Please re-read your comments and consider why I've poicked up an "insulting" tone.

>> So Saturday (yesterday) would be part of THIS week, just as you say Sunday (today) is part of THIS week. And...? <<

Yes. Hollywood measures weeks from Friday to Thursday.

>> You cut out--I'm sure completely by accident--BOTH mentions that movies commonly drop slightly when they go wide. You also conveniently ignore that you said BBM dropped 70%--dropping $20k from $765k is 70%? On what planet? <<

Do you have any understanding of the meaning of "per?" It dropped a TOTAL of $20,000, as it expanded to ten more than three times as many theaters. THat means the PER THEATER gross dropped 70%.


25 posted on 12/25/2005 12:40:20 PM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: dangus

If it is not a monetary success, it will be lauded as "art for art's sake." If it is framed as a monetary success, it will be heralded as proof that cowboys are are gay. I will continue to ignore it as it deserves.


26 posted on 12/25/2005 1:25:31 PM PST by sam_paine (X .................................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377; CaptainK; softwarecreator

Mystery of Conflicting Budgets Solved:

Box Office Mojo's "Production" budgets apparently include cost of shooting the film, and reproducing the film onto various prints.

The filming costs for Narnia were $150 million. Softwarecreator, that's what you and I had seen published elsewhere as costs for Narnia. Printing costs for the full release for Narnia's 3800 copies were $30 million,brigning the total production budget up to $180 million.

Figures for Brokeback Mountain are a little more complicated. The film cost $13 million to stage. Apparently, the $30 million total cost was based on a traditionally moderately wide release (I guess around 2,000 theaters?). Then the producers decided to release it more narrowly than originally planned, hence the $18 million budget. The $15 million budget currently being cited is based on the couple-hundred print release the film is currently in. I guess Box Office Mojo's $14 million is still based on the previous 69-theater release? BUt if the movie is going to come close to profitability, it will need the release that would cost $18 million.

So to compare Narnia to Brokeback, it'd make sense to compare either $180 million to $18 million, or $150 million to $13 million. For Narnia to become profitable, it would need worldwide grosses of about $420 million. Again, it's more complicated with Brokeback Mountain. Presuming is onternational release schedule would be a similar receipt:print ratio that is planned for America, and that the American release is about 400 films, Brokeback would need about $60 million to profit. OTOH, if it stays to a narrower American release similar of about 200 theaters, it could make a profit of $36 million.

The profitability figures rules-of-thumb do not include pay-TV contracts, or sales of DVDs. (Oddly, I believe they do include post-release DVD rentals, but I'm not sure if that word means what would commonly be presumed.)


27 posted on 12/26/2005 6:59:06 AM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: dangus

profit of $26 million = profit at $36 million.


28 posted on 12/26/2005 7:00:40 AM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: dangus

AAARGHHH! Typos, typos, typos!


29 posted on 12/26/2005 7:01:08 AM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

Comment #30 Removed by Moderator

To: Soul_of_Chogokin

Kong is, at least, much, much, much better than the 1970s versoin, though.


31 posted on 12/27/2005 8:52:51 AM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: dangus
I was out of town for a few days and didn't get this post until just now ... thank you for the information.  It does clear up the mystery a bit and gives great insight into how budgets are derived at and what it takes for a film to bring in a profit during it's thetrical run.

Thanks again!

32 posted on 12/27/2005 9:09:36 PM PST by softwarecreator (Facts are to liberals as holy water is to vampires.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-32 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson