Sorry but you’re wrong. It’s an arthouse movie, with arthouse advertising. See a “normal” studio release campaign is national, but since this movie isn’t out national the ad campaign isn’t. I haven’t seen ad 1 for this movie yet, because it won’t be here for months. And I probably won’t see any ads for it because by the time the arthouse movies get to Tucson sized cities they’re pretty much relying entirely on word of mouth (they love the internet) and the theater’s own advertising (they also love the internet).
And arthouse exhibitors don’t always get a bigger slice, many get a smaller slice, many are non-profit organizations heavily supported by other local businesses so they don’t need as big a slice in the first place. And of course they don’t have the constant release pressure that the bigs have. Big theaters have to put up with a movie industry that averages 4 major releases a week, they need the big score now because they have no later. Arthouses get to show what they want whenever they get around to it. Tucson’s showed The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo for 3 solid months, of course on the other side they show things like Cropsey twice.
Every way you slice it your math is 100% NOT how thing work for this kind of movie. Which is why your estimate is problematic at best.
9 million in a month for a movie that will be in circulation for 6 to 9 months is really good. See you keep using “big” release math but that’s not how things work. For a big release the first month is 90% of the revenue the movie will make in domestic theaters. For an arthouse movie the first month is 10 to 20%, they have a much much longer shelf life.
I’ll keep watching the mojo on this one. You’ll see, sometime around March, when this movie finally gets to here (not that I’ll see it but it’ll be here) it’ll probably be over 40 or 50 mil, and solidly profitable. An arthouse movie that manages to squeeze into the top 10 on under 400 theaters is making solid money.
When a studio advertises a film for thirty seconds on broadcast television in primetime (as they are for this film in both Pacific Standard Time and Eastern Standard Time, because the film is out at both ends of the country) — that is a studio release ad budget. It’s stage one of a national release campaign, just on a slower rollout getting to the rest of the country.
“Fair Game” is a mainstream studio film DISGUISED as an arthouse release, because it can’t compete with Harry Potter at the multiplex. If it were really a “small” film (it’s not; they’ve spent too much money on it) with growing “want to see” demand (there’s no evidence it’s going to do better in Tucson than it’s done in Los Angeles), the numbers might pencil out. But neither of these conditions has been met. So it’s tanking.
Agreed that arthouse releases can follow a slightly different trajectory to profitability — but the number that puts you in the black is the same for every picture with a marketing budget equal to the production budget, like “Fair Game.” Looks to me like the marketing costs have even exceeded production on this one.
I’m happy to revisit this debate in March, but “40 or 50 mil” will not be “solidly profitable.” “Fair Game” has to do $54 million just to recoup costs. At $60 million, I’ll agree that it’s comfortably in the black, and I’ll cheerfully take my hat off to you.
I have and I'm in Arkansas. I can't remember if it was television advertising or where I saw it but it wasn't in a movie theatre since I avoid those like the plague.