Merry Christmas, everyone...
Since you all commented to a previous article I wrote about the failure of Brokeback Mountain, I thought I'd update you:
Friday, Brokeback Mountain expanded to 217 theaters, 10 more than the number of theaters last week. And yet, the total box-office take was down this week. Even with many people having the day off, and box-office in general soaring. The per-theater take is down 70% from last Friday, and more than 90% since its debut.
The extra-fast exppansion is not a sign of success, I believe, but failure... The initial statements by the filmmakers was that they were going to tightly control access to the movie to keep it virtually sold out. So why the change if not to responde to high demand? I believe theater owners were starting to complain that they were going to end up paying first-run prices for what would be a second-run movie by the time they got their hands on it?
Like I told some strange FReepers who were "optimistic" of Borkeback Mountain: You can't extrapolate from a premier, ultra-exclusive, mega-theater, initial box-office take to what the movie will do in the larger nation; in spite of appearing in more than 40 times more theaters, the movie took in less than four times its premier take.
I did say that the movie would not top what it took in last week, and its on a pace not to. Howver, the movie is shown in 50% more theaters than it was announced for. So I could imagine it improving on Sunday over the previous week.
Another wierd thing: Box Office Mojo is now claiming the movie cost only $14 million to make. I had first seen $30 million. When BOM said $18, I presumed that the difference was that the $30 million figure included marketing costs, which would be infered to be $12 million. Now I figure that BOM is going along with a campaign to make the movie LOOK like it is making mney when it is failing; $14 million is an easier target than $30 million, and actually is about what I'd estimate the movie will make, before the Oscar nominations.
Whatever the claimed costs, you can'ta ssemble that cast, crew and on-location sets for $14 million. If it did cost that little, it's because the makers were foregoing normal rates to get the movie made. So whether the studio loses money, or the principles lose money, the point is the movie loses money. On the other hand, BOM has, without explanation, raised the production costs of Narnia from $150 million to $180 million. 'salright... Narnia will make about $250 million.
Brokeback is expected to expand to over 400 theaters by the end of January... I'm thinking some theater owners may ask why they should shell out first-run dough for a second-run movie.
I agree with you, I remember seeing the $30 million budget figure too and thinking that it probably would not gross that amount. Looks like the spin is on. Doesn't really matter ... they (the studio) will know they lost money and be much more hesitant to shell out bucks for another "love" story like that.
How can BBM be in "10 more than last week" unless last week it was in 207 theaters, when it was in 69 theaters until Thursday? Also, the budget number I've seen has been @$15 mil consistently.
Here's my source btw:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/daily/chart/?sortdate=2005-12-23&p=.htm
Friday, Brokeback Mountain expanded to 217 theaters, 10 more than the number of theaters last week. And yet, the total box-office take was down this week.
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.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=daily&id=brokebackmountain.htm Even with many people having the day off, and box-office in general soaring. The per-theater take is down 70% from last Friday, and more than 90% since its debut.
From BOM:"It's natural for a picture's average to drop significantly as it adds smaller markets." And yet, your assertions about "70% from last Friday" and 90% since its debut are completely off.
Look at the Friday numbers--the red and blue numbers refer to the drop/gain from the previous day/Friday. I see a drop of "2.6%" since last Friday--see the red number? Where do you get 70%? And 90%--it opened with less than $200k, and Friday made $745k.
The extra-fast exppansion is not a sign of success, I believe, but failure... The initial statements by the filmmakers was that they were going to tightly control access to the movie to keep it virtually sold out. So why the change if not to responde to high demand? I believe theater owners were starting to complain that they were going to end up paying first-run prices for what would be a second-run movie by the time they got their hands on it?
You're wrong. As I quoted above, there's always a per screen drop when a movie goes wide. How could it be a "second run" movie if it wasn't yet available yet in any of these markets?
Like I told some strange FReepers who were "optimistic" of Borkeback Mountain:
You're making the mistake many FReepers are making--that those of us who are telling the truth about the numbers this movie is doing are somehow "strange," trying to imply that by saying "this is making money" we are supporting the message of the film. That's just silly, it's like saying "Hillary is no threat" is somehow supporting her. The strange ones are those who can't separate their feelings about the content from the business facts--something you're having a very hard time doing.
You can't extrapolate from a premier, ultra-exclusive, mega-theater, initial box-office take to what the movie will do in the larger nation; in spite of appearing in more than 40 times more theaters, the movie took in less than four times its premier take.
That's just a figure snatched out of the air and doesn't take a lot of factors into account. The big mega-productions are in ten times the number of theaters this is in, or even twenty. Multiply this take by those numbers and you're talking a gigantic hit for a drama. These numbers are very good on what is still a limited number of screens. (Kong is on 3500 screens.)
I did say that the movie would not top what it took in last week, and its on a pace not to.
You're already wrong, though. Last week: @$2.3; this week so far: @$3.
However, the movie is shown in 50% more theaters than it was announced for. So I could imagine it improving on Sunday over the previous week.
It already has.
Another wierd thing: Box Office Mojo is now claiming the movie cost only $14 million to make. I had first seen $30 million. When BOM said $18, I presumed that the difference was that the $30 million figure included marketing costs, which would be infered to be $12 million. Now I figure that BOM is going along with a campaign to make the movie LOOK like it is making mney when it is failing; $14 million is an easier target than $30 million, and actually is about what I'd estimate the movie will make, before the Oscar nominations.
I've never seen a number other than @$15mil.
Whatever the claimed costs, you can'ta ssemble that cast, crew and on-location sets for $14 million. If it did cost that little, it's because the makers were foregoing normal rates to get the movie made.
Again, not true. Actors and above-the-line talent often take a smaller portion upfront for more on the backend. Pardon the pun. Below-the-line costs depend on if it was a union shoot, which I doubt. You certainly can assemble that cast and etc. for $14mil.
So whether the studio loses money, or the principles lose money, the point is the movie loses money. Again, not true. On such a low budget, foreign, TV and DVD sales will produce a profit, even if it doesn't earn out in its theatrical run, which it is clearly on its way to doing.
On the other hand, BOM has, without explanation, raised the production costs of Narnia from $150 million to $180 million. 'salright... Narnia will make about $250 million.
Just yesterday I posted a clip from an article about the co-investor who put in "half the budget"--$90million dollars. The budget's been $180 mil as long as I've been reading about it.
Again, you've got to stop pushing a movie because you like its message if we're dealing with the numbers.
Brokeback is expected to expand to over 400 theaters by the end of January... I'm thinking some theater owners may ask why they should shell out first-run dough for a second-run movie.
You clearly don't understand the term "first-run" or "second-run." If a movie hasn't been available for viewing in an area, it's not a "Second run" even rhetorically. How can people see it already and lose these theater owners money if they knew about its limited release plan all along? Also, movies like this often expand to more theaters after early success.
Please see a posted reply to dangus's post on the BBM numbers on the thread.
My bad--I meant: "...it's like saying "Hillary is a threat" is somehow supporting her.
I'm more outraged about the revisionist films of Clooney and Spielberg.
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.