Studios will need CPR due to Box Office receipts by Years End.

[DarkJedi]

Those studio execs must be having a real blast these days at their gold crested water coolers. For so many years where they could greenlight and churn out popcorn munching, coca-cola drizzling, semi-engaging crapfests and still make the big bucks....Now days, there is a large difference of hits and misses due to a mass variety of economic and cynical audience minded equations.


As of right now, there are only 7 movies for 2006 above the $ 90.0 mil plateau in domestic grosses. Only 1 movie of those 7 movies is above the $ 200.0 mil water mark.

1. Xmen:The Last Stand 216.219 mil

2. The Da Vinci Code 198.768 mil

3. Ice Age: The Meltdown 192.832 mil

4. Over The Hedge 139.047 mil

5. Mission Impossible III 130.163 mil

6. Cars 117.055 mil

7. The Break-Up 92.260 mil


I understand that this economic box office shift has been going on since 2005 where the numbers were down slightly but not THIS much in decline.

2005 had at least 19 movies over the $ 100.0 mil mark. The number one film of 2005 made $ 380 mil while numbers 2-8 were also over the $ 200.0 mil mark. Numbers 20-34 were at least in the semi respected $ 70.0-90.0 mil range too.

1. Star Wars: Episode III 380.176 mil

2. The Chronicles of Narnia 291.685 mil

3. Harry Potter & Goblet 289.994 mil

4. War of the Worlds 234.207 mil

5. King Kong 218.051 mil

6. The Wedding Crashers 209.218 mil

7. Charlie & Choc. Factory 206.439 mil

8. Batman Begins 205.279 mil

This year, though, it goes from small box office successes that hardly make up for the budget costs to utter failures so far.


2004 was about the same in numbers as 2005, it had one movie over the 400 mil range while also having its number 2 movie over the 300 mil mark.

The last two years' good numbers have been contributed by Harry Potter movies, a Bond film, Spiderman 2, Batman Begins, King Kong, Star Wars, and Shrek 2.

I guess our year isn't over yet but I know there is no Harry Potter film coming out this year. No King Kong or Lord of the Rings type movie as well which has any relative hype on the market today.

I understand that in our entertainment structure today, the after theatre market is thriving and studios make alot of dough on tv revenue as well as the dvd market......but how much of a ratio of economic performance is needed to make up for the box office theatre declines? The studios still depend very very much on the first two or three weeks at the major theatre chains to make up for alot of it's costs of making these films. They can't all be dependant upon dvd sales and merchandising..

Can Bond, Superman, and Pirates of the Caribbean 2 help give the box office that much a boost?


Edit: It was pointed out to me that this year is actually up compared to last year in numbers. According to Box Office Mojo (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/?view2=ytdcompare&view=releasedate&p=.htm) , the numbers are up Year To Date(Jan to Now).

Up 3.8 % to 2005 and down 4.4 % to 2004.

I have the feeling though that's happening because last years major hits came out later in the year while only 2 of the top 8 came out in the beginning to early summer where as this year, the top 8 are all obviously from the beginning to early summer. The percents add up accordingly to last year's YTD being worse then this year's YTD.

However, looking at last years fall releases compared to this years fall releases, 2005 seems to be way ahead of the game. I see no Harry Potter, Chronicles of Narnia or King Kong on this years fall lineup. Bond seems to be the only one coming. There's gonna have to be some others stepping up as well this fall. Bond can't be the only success. Maybe Saw III or Apocylapto?

In the end, 2005(a year touted as a major failure to some box office anaylists) will beat the hell out of 2006 by the end unless something happens unexpected this fall.......the YTD reciepts be damned.




Here's a list of upcoming movies as taken by film-releases.com:

The Upcoming movies of 2006 (http://www.film-releases.com/film-release-schedule-2006.php)

[Daltons Chin Dimple]

I believe it is largely due to the fact that the cinema is now amazingly over-priced. Combine this with the soul destroying experience of actually going to a modern theatre and being surrounded by idiots and it's easy to see where the audiences are going.

I used to go to the theatre once a week. Nowadays I only go for one of those "Must see on the big screen" releases (e.g. Star Wars etc).

Here in the UK to go to the theatre it costs me about £2 in gas, £2.50 to park, £8 per ticket (so £16 if taking Lou with me) then about £10 on concessions. £30.50 and a 20 minute drive each way.

Now, if I get a DVD, it's £3.50 for two nights rental or £13 to buy the damn thing, £7 for a bottle of wine and I can stop it when I want to (go out back for a cigarette, get another drink, toilet break etc) and the DVD store is three minutes from my house. Add to this that I am not surrounded by Shamilla's and Loquisha's yapping into their idiot phones, and having to nearly chin the chav mother-f**ker who can't sit still behind me..... DVD starts to win !

[neglet]

I don't think things are quite as bleak as they might look, even when you compare to last year. If you look at last year's $200+ club (Star Wars: Episode III; The Chronicles of Narnia; Harry Potter; War of the Worlds; King Kong; The Wedding Crashers; Charlie & Choc. Factory; Batman Begins), only three of those debuted before July Fourth (SW 3, WoW, BB). If you look at this year's top grossers so far, I think there are 4 that could cross the $200 mil mark: Xmen 3 (already at 224 mil); The Da Vinci Code (at $205 mil after last weekend); Ice Age 2 (needs $7 mil, but possible over summer); and Cars (now at $156 mil, very possible over summer)

Now, I think Superman Returns and Pirates 2 will be the biggest films of the summer, easily exceeding $200 mil, and maybe approaching $300. That would make six. The last James Bond took almost $161 mill in 2002, so the new one, if the buzz continues to build (and the competition for action in November remains sluggish), could reach $200 mill. That would be seven, one short of last year's tally.

What's missing from this year so far is the breakout, word-of-mouth comedy like Wedding Crashers, which last year took 9 weeks to break $200 mil. I don't know if there's a comedy out there with that kind of potential, because those are really hard to predict.

Although this is a year where we may not have many fall blockbusters, I think there will be several high-performing prestige films, as in 2004 "Million Dollar Baby" reached the $100 mil mark. We've got Scorcese's "The Departed," which I think has the potential to be his highest grosser yet (after "The Aviator," which made $102 mil). We've got Eastwood's "Faith of our Fathers," which could do the same ("Unforgiven" was his highest grosser, at $101 mil). So don't wave the white flag on 2006 yet.

p.s. Can you tell I love Box Office Mojo? (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/)

[neglet]

ps: a flick I missed seeing on the list, but that I think is a sure thing for Christmas, is the live-action of "Charlotte's Web." Family films can score big, and this one is based on one of the most beloved books of all time, plus stars Dakota Fanning. $100 mill-plus is sure, $200-mill possible.

[DarkJedi]

Haha Negs, never leave home without it. Box Office mojo rocks.

As far as waving the white flag, I guess I haven't just yet but I do think when looking at the fall movies in comparison to previous fall lineups, that it does look bleak for the studio execs.

As you say, there hasn't been any real breakout hits. So far, the major box office cashcows have been from the "expected" movies while other expected films failed miserably.

I know I love Scorcese's works but I'm not sure how much box office reciepts I can accept from them since his record for actual attendance can be something left to be desired for box office gold. Same with Eastwood.

Both are great directors widely viewed as Gold Mantle Statue fodder but that doesn't always translate into box office records for the studios.

Your expectations of the current movies out as far as where they will end up in the money rankings seem spot on, though. I just wonder if having the fall lineup that we do, is it enough for Studio execs to be pessimistic or optimistic about the year end final tally.

[DaForce]

Gotta agree with Dalton, the movie-going public (ie. the majority that still go to the movies regularly) are a bunch of mouth breathers. Case in point, I went to see Click on Fri. I bought my tickets, moved to the side to put stuff away, and then proceeded to stand there with my mouth open as I watched the next five people in line go up to the cashier and ask when the movie was starting.

Why is this astonishing? Because if the morons could read, and tilted their heads up about 20 degrees, the times were in red right above the cashier's head! My favorite, the one guy that came up the cashier and asked, ' You got dat movie dats got that Tyresse in it?' (no, I did not embellish the sentence to make a point, that's exactly the way he said it to the cashier).

Then upon going into see Click, this idiot with two small children (ages 3 &5) sits right next to us. I say idiot because obviously he has never taught these kids how to whisper or stay quiet during a movie, and he's an idiot because Click is not a children's movie. After a few dirty looks, he and his hellspawn moved down to the end of the row where people were telling them to shut the hell up by the end of the movie.


So between the majority of missing links that go to the movies, high prices for crap products (including the movies being made), and people with less manners than a cow with the runs, I can see why Hollywood is 'losing' money.

[neglet]

Sure, those two films are pure Oscar-bait, but I look at the subject matter and see great moneymaking potential.

I know Scorsese doesn't have a great record at the box office, but I thought the subject matter of "The Departed"--it's a remake of the Hong Kong crime drama "Infernal Affairs," so you get those fanboys--along with the cast make it the most broadly appealing of his works so far. "Inside Man" made $88 mill this winter; I think a similarly intricate crime drama starring DiCaprio, Damon, and Nicholson--with the added cachet of Scorsese as director--has the potential to break $100 mill, no sweat.

As for Eastwood's "Flags of our Fathers"--a WWII movie about Iwo Jima and that iconic flag-raising? I think it has tremendous BO potential. "Saving Private Ryan" earned $216 mil domestically back in 1998. Granted, Eastwood doesn't have quite the reputation of Spielberg, but he's close--and we're in the post-9/11 period, where a great film about the great war is going to appeal to a lot of people. If this film gets decent reviews, I think it will easily pass $100 mill and even reach $200 mill.

[Intelligent_Design]

Clerks 2 will be the highest grossing comedy of the year....One can dream.:ohwell: But I think the 9/11 movie will top 100 mill maybe 200.

[Adam54]

I'm so incredibly grateful that the box office is down, however you want to look at it.

Eventually, hopefully, maybe, the powers that be will catch on and think "oh. um. maybe they want to see something different. Maybe they don't want to see 25 minutes of commercials and trailers before our film. Maybe we should give them a reason to come here instead of waiting three months for the dvd."

If you quit GOING to crap movies, they'll quit MAKING crap movies. I just...yeah...people act like this is some sort of huge surprise. But really, with all of the horrific stuff (do I really need to list it?) it completely confounds me that they just aren't *getting* why receipts are down.

And for the record, I can't see Apocalypto being anything but a massive, utter failure. And I'd have to disagree with I_D about the 9/11 movie. It's starting in August (usually a death sentence)...and look at the United 93 movie. Excellent film, but didn't do much of anything at the Box Office.

Just my two cents,
Adam

[Intelligent_Design]

And for the record, I can't see Apocalypto being anything but a massive, utter failure. And I'd have to disagree with I_D about the 9/11 movie. It's starting in August (usually a death sentence)...and look at the United 93 movie. Excellent film, but didn't do much of anything at the Box Office.

Just my two cents,
Adam9/11 has more star power behind it than Flight 93 the reason I think it may do well is it doesn't have any major competition. I totally agree with you about the crap movies, I'm the biggest offender though. The last time I paid full price for a movie I knew was gonna suck and it didn't, was PoTC.

[kah]

I think what they should be worrying about is actually realizing a profit from these remakes and sequals. It's one thing to not have creativity, but it's another to spend so much money on it.

Biggest Budgets (http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/records/budgets.html)

Keep in mind- those are just the budgets, not what they actually spent.

[ladymurasaki]

Box office returns on Superman aren't actually looking so hot, and the early word on Pirates isn't great. I'm curious to see how all these films do over the course of the summer.

On the one hand, I too would like to see agents and studios have less creative control and for that power structure to break down so the audience can at least have more options to see risky, original stories. But who knows? Maybe the market will fragment so much that there won't be a new trend where any one person (or country) dominates the market again.

Certainly every aspect of entertainment seems to be fragmenting -- which is making the big guns freak out and try to control things even more.

[ladymurasaki]

For anyone who is still interested in this subject, the Times did an interesting story today that is relevant.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/03/movies/03boff.html

Here is a quote:

The film industry continues to fret over competition from video games, home entertainment systems and the Internet, but the recovery provides evidence that going out to see movies on a giant, communal screen remains a central part of the American leisure experience.

But that's because Hollywood is trying harder.

Here's another one which I thought was interesting and sort of amusing.

As the once reliable young male audience continues to drift, studios have been trying to widen their demographic appeal. A study last year by OTX found that young men saw 24 percent fewer movies in summer 2005 than they did in summer 2003, a finding reinforced in a new poll by Nielsen Entertainment.

[Intelligent_Design]

I think one big problem is the are no big movie franchises out there other than PoTC and Potter. I don't count Bond that died after Goldeneye.

[neglet]

So much for the death of the summer box office ...

POTC: Dead Man's Chest breaks box office records, (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=2111&p=.htm) earning $132 mil in its first weekend. Also note further down in the article that this week's box office was up by 50% over last year, when Fantastic Four debuted. I guess if you build it, they will come....

[DaForce]

Yeah, I saw that Supermute Returns dropped 60% in revenue over this weekend. Pulling in around $140 million total for a $260 million movie, looks like this is going to be a Superflop. Unfortunately, they'll probably still make a sequel using all the same people. :ohwell:

[neglet]

I'd hardly call it a Superflop just because it's "only" taken in $140 mill over two weeks, especially when its second weekend was in competition with another huge blockbuster that's now the #1 weekend performer of all time.

If Supes is still under $200 mill by the end of the summer, then maybe I'd agree with your assessment. With at least seven weeks of summer left, however, no other major blockbusters on the horizon, and a film that appeals to older moviegoers who don't necessarily see films when they open, I'd wouldn't count Supes out yet.

[bluetuned]

Another film that nobody mentioned that I expect to do HUGE business is The Nativity Story, which comes out (of course) this Christmas. The Christian base in this country can be incredibly powerful if they all get behind something. Look what happened with Passion of the Christ. I'm not expecting numbers that big, but you can be sure it'll draw enourmous crowds, and I'd hardly be surprised if it pulled 200m.

And of course, when it does Hollywood will gasp and act surprised AGAIN.

[DaForce]

Another film that nobody mentioned that I expect to do HUGE business is The Nativity Story, which comes out (of course) this Christmas. The Christian base in this country can be incredibly powerful if they all get behind something. Look what happened with Passion of the Christ. I'm not expecting numbers that big, but you can be sure it'll draw enourmous crowds, and I'd hardly be surprised if it pulled 200m.

And of course, when it does Hollywood will gasp and act surprised AGAIN.


I dunno. There's no blood or controversy with this one.




And we all know how much those crazy Christians like their blood and controversy. :wink:

[bluetuned]

True, but if there was one box office drawback of Passion, it was that it was too violent for children (not that it stopped some families I'm sure). This one won't have that problem.

Of course, that is unless they've come up with some crazy new interpretation with machine guns and lots of sex.

[Bill_the_Pony]

I dunno. There's no blood or controversy with this one.




And we all know how much those crazy Christians like their blood and controversy. :wink:

And kinky sex, as long as all the participants perish. :)

[DaForce]

And kinky sex, as long as all the participants perish. :)

I forgot about that.


They have to suffer greatly and then perish.


What was I thinking?

[Daltons Chin Dimple]

Another point regarding Superman Returns, don't forget it hasn't even opened worldwide yet. Usually on a film that size they open worldwide on the same day (excluding a few places) but for some reason Warners decided not to do this with Supes. It is openeing AFTER PotC2, which opened huge in the rest of the world this weekend and will probably suffer the same sort of drop off that Supes suffered from the PotC2 opening in the US. It'll cruise past it's $250 million mark worldwide with ease. Might even surprise people with legs like Batman Begins which was considered a flop in it's first few weeks and the ran and ran and ran and ran all summer long and well into autumn..... then owned on DVD too.

[DarkJedi]

Actually, it's not looking "too" bad for some of the studios. Sure, the numbers are spread out like they have been in the past but things are looking somewhat better for execs in suits.

I originally posted this right before Superman Returns and Pirates 2 came out questioning whether those two movies can give an upward boost to the industry for the rest of this year's numbers.

Here's how it stacks now in numbers.

There are 4 movies over $200.0 million, 1 over $400.0 million, 8 over $100.0 million but below $200.0(though Superman is sitting close at $198.008 mil) while ranks 13-18 stand to at least a somewhat decent $80.0 mil marker.

1. Pirates 2: Dead Man's Chest--$418.4 mil

2. Cars--$243.0 mil

3. Xmen:Last Stand--$234.3 mil

4. The Da Vinci Code--$217.5

5. Superman Returns--$198.0 mil

6. Ice Age:The Meltdown--$195.2 mil

7. Over the Hedge--$155.0 mil

8. Talladega Nights--$145.0 mil(Will Ferrel did good)

9. Click--$137.1 mil(Another SNL alumni)

10. Mission Impossible 3--$133.3 mil

11. The Devil Wears Prada--$123.1 mil(this years My Big Fat Greek Wedding)

12. The Break-Up--$118.6 mil

13. Scary Movie 4--$90.4 mil


Not really bad numbers considering we have a couple of possible blockbuster hits coming from now thru January. Bond is one possible juggernaut on the horizon. Eragon could be one too since it's coming out Dec 15th(a great time for fantasy movies obviously..)

[kah]

Where are those numbers from? I've been hearing 1 Billion for Pirates.

The Numbers (http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/records/budgets.php)

[neglet]

$1 bill is worldwide gross; the $400+ mill is domestic.

For my numbers, I prefer http://www.boxofficemojo.com. (http://www.boxofficemojo.com)

[kah]

Looking at The Numbers, I can't believe they spent 100 Million on Son of the Mask. Who the hell approved that?

Looking at some more of their numbers, it's really sad how much crap really gets made. I think if the studios concentrated on putting out 2 good movies a month each, we'd get better movies, and they'd make more money.

Tell me if you were a studio exec if you would've approved any of these movies? Budgets in parentheses, just to show you how ridiculous this all is.

Stealth(138M), Catwoman(100M), Son of the Mask(100M), Pluto Nash(100M), The Core(85M), Battlefield Earth(80M), Little Nicky(80M), Red Planet(80M), Osmosis Jones(70M), I Spy(70M), Rollerball(70M), Ecks vs Sever(70M), Monkeybone(70M), Holy Man(60M) (a lot of Eddie Murphy movies...), Eye See You(55M), Gigli(54M), Death to Smoochy(50M), The Big Bounce(50M), Femme Fatale(35M), The Jacket(28.5M), Tank Girl(25M), Bloodrayne(25M), Swept Away(10M), etc etc

I've actually seen a few of these movies. You'd think by now the studios would learn to cut their spending, or actually pick movies to make based on some merit. :dunno:

[cmitchell]

Its one of those situations where the problem lies in the original films being created. The studios income is going to be dependent on the quallity of the films being made, and given the current list of films... well... either these are the best, and it has been a seriously shitty year for movies, or we have some seriously retarded executives playing catch in their offices while picking random movies.

[kawaiidragonfoe821]

I those 7 IMO are the the only movies out of loads that were worth anything, but still not worth a trip to the movies. I mean, it was one thing when i lived about a mile from the theater, but how i live over an hr from the nearest town with a theater & I'm a lot more picky about what i spend my hard earned money on. I imagine the same is true for a lot of other people.