Replies

>> 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.