V For Vendetta Box Office Tracking Thread [Archive]

View Full Version : V For Vendetta Box Office Tracking Thread

TheVileOne

03-18-2006, 04:20 PM

I only saw a BO forecast thread, so here we go.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/daily/chart/?sortdate=2006-03-17&p=.htm

According to Box Office Mojo, V For Vendetta had an estimated opening opening day of $8.3 million. If that holds up, I think that will put it in the $25-30 million range for the weekend.

Interestingly enough the movie was released around the same time as the 3 year anniversary of the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

GL's Light

03-18-2006, 04:24 PM

That opening day is more likely to get it to an opening weekend of $ 21-23 million.

J.Howlett

03-18-2006, 04:31 PM

24-27 million this weekend. No matter what, the film will be a hit. The production budget of the film was only 50 million. Let's say marketing was 20 million ( I doubt that). This film will gross probably around 65-70 million domestically. Add worldwide gross and DVD sales and WB will turn a pretty good profit off this film...

Everything is looking good. Although, I would've liked a 30 million opening weekend for this gem.

Marcus M.

03-18-2006, 04:35 PM

I saw it and I almost walked out. It shouldn't gross anything.

Gamma Ray

03-18-2006, 05:58 PM

I saw it and I almost walked out. It shouldn't gross anything.

First: LMFAO!!

Second: You must be more dense than Osmium.

Third: Get the **** out of the V forum if you have nothing to say about it.

echostation

03-18-2006, 06:09 PM

gamma ray he's expressing an opinion... no need for direct insults, that's really quite sad of you to do.

lol so what if he's in a V forum, he's allowed to say whatever he wants about the film he saw, if he hated it and actually genuinely did walk out then fine, who are you to go on and say get the **** out of the forum... this forum is not just for fans but for anyone who saw the movie and wants to express an opinion

grow up buddy..

InVictus

03-18-2006, 06:24 PM

I'm just coming from my first view(22.30)...and the theatre was packed...
so i really don't think it will bomb. And i saw many people discussing the movie on the exit, this is the kind of movie you recommend friends to watch so it is good to not have it publicized much (at least here in Italy)

LastSunrise1981

03-18-2006, 06:38 PM

I saw it and I almost walked out. It shouldn't gross anything.

Evidently there was something about it that you liked, you stayed and watched the entire film. :)

TheVileOne

03-18-2006, 06:52 PM

First: LMFAO!!

Second: You must be more dense than Osmium.

Third: Get the **** out of the V forum if you have nothing to say about it.
Take it easy. This is not the kind of film everyone is going to love. It can be quite polarizing.

And yeah, 23-27 million for the weekend is probably a more accurate estimate.

Howlett, a movie like this has a marketing budget of at LEAST $30 million.

Also, we rarely see the media take distribution budgets into account. Making thousands of prints for movies, some that need tons of different international subtitles is NOT cheap.

Karea07

03-18-2006, 11:22 PM

the movie was great, hope it does real well.

dr.strange

03-18-2006, 11:54 PM

If this movie bombs,will it have any effect on future comicbook adaptations?league of ex gentleman was a huge bomb.(i kinda liked it)

StorminNorman

03-19-2006, 12:50 AM

I saw it and I almost walked out. It shouldn't gross anything.

I personally would like to know why. If it was because of your political ideology I think it is a shame that you would allow it to effect your view on the movie. You will not find another (reasonable) person out there more conservative than me on many issues, however I truly, absolutly, loved this film entirly.

TheVileOne

03-19-2006, 12:51 AM

Well the movie probably isn't going to flop.

And Hollywood will still keep making comic book movies.

Antonello Blueberry

03-19-2006, 06:36 AM

You know that if the movie turns out to be a big success, WB will announce the production of Watchmen in a couple of weeks?

hammerhedd11

03-19-2006, 10:35 AM

I bet this will make a gross of $60 to $65 million total just because of the R rating and the contreversial subject. I bet this is going to be huge on DVD though.

Deathlok2001

03-19-2006, 11:53 AM

I loved this movie! cant wait for the DVD!

GL's Light

03-19-2006, 11:57 AM

The weekend estimate is up on Box Office Mojo: $ 26.1 million. It had a good Friday-to-weekend multiplier.

matrix_ghost

03-19-2006, 12:19 PM

Well that is a good opening , so it'll make it's budget back .
The real question is , will it have legs ?

I'm sure alot of people , including myself , want this movie to get an audience and the more money it makes at the BO the more people will have seen it.

Edit :
But i want to know if that is with or without the IMAX sales. That is where this movie will probably have it's legs. It worked for Batman Begins. It might work for V For Vendetta as well

TheVileOne

03-19-2006, 01:38 PM

You know that if the movie turns out to be a big success, WB will announce the production of Watchmen in a couple of weeks?
No. Watchmen ain't going to be cheap.

Plus, unless V For Vendetta has an absolutely fabulous second weekend, its not going to make near the amounts everyone here predicted it would.

Generally, most comic book movies drop 50% or more in their second weekend. Just about all of them do save for the Spider-man films. Even Sin City, which opened up much stronger than V For Vendeta and made around...what? 70 million, 75 million?

GL's Light

03-19-2006, 01:52 PM

V For Vendetta should end up with a domestic gross of at least $ 65 million, and probably not more than $ 85 million. It'll be neither a breakout smash hit nor a flop, just a solid performer that will turn a profit for its studio.

I don't think any future greenlights for comic book projects are tied to the box office performance of this film. The box office of X3 and Superman Returns, on the other hand, will likely have a lot of influence over decisions of which comic book projects get greenlit.

matrix_ghost

03-19-2006, 02:17 PM

No. Watchmen ain't going to be cheap.

Plus, unless V For Vendetta has an absolutely fabulous weekend, its not going to make near the amounts everyone here predicted it would.

Generally, most comic book movies drop 50% or more in their second weekend. Just about all of them do save for the Spider-man films. Even Sin City, which opened up much stronger than V For Vendeta and made around...what? 70 million, 75 million?

Should VfV prove to be a solid performer both domestic and international , then i guess warner could go on and make it.True Watchmen ain't gonna be cheap , but if you are a effective producer who knows how to bring down the cost of a movie then you can make a "proper watchmen " movie.

A weekend generally doesn't say much about a movie , it's the legs that a movie has.
I mean look at Walk The Line. It opened against Harry Potter ( if i remember correctly) yet it still grossed the 100 million mark .

V obviouls has the R rating which limits it reaching the 100 million mark.
But having it open in IMAX is a good thing

TheSlag

03-19-2006, 02:20 PM

First: LMFAO!!

Second: You must be more dense than Osmium.

Third: Get the **** out of the V forum if you have nothing to say about it.

Seems like he had plenty to say... Mainly... He didn't like it. :rolleyes:

TheVileOne

03-19-2006, 02:40 PM

Should VfV prove to be a solid performer both domestic and international , then i guess warner could go on and make it.True Watchmen ain't gonna be cheap , but if you are a effective producer who knows how to bring down the cost of a movie then you can make a "proper watchmen " movie.

I still think Watchmen is unfilmable and I don't want to see Hollywood ruin it. I found V to be disappointing.

Plus, last I heard, Watchmen got axed and is in creative limbo.

V For Vendetta opening up to $26 million doesn't say, "WATCHMEN GETS A GREENLIGHT".

You know what the opening weekend was for LXG? $23 million. With inflation, lowering movie attendance, and raising ticket prices...both movies essentially opened up the same.

A weekend generally doesn't say much about a movie , it's the legs that a movie has.

My point is most comic book movies at the BO save for the Spider-man films do not have long legs. Almost all of them have a 50% or more dropoff in the second weekend.

I mean look at Walk The Line. It opened against Harry Potter ( if i remember correctly) yet it still grossed the 100 million mark .

Walk The Line is NOT a legitimate comparison. It was an oscar season movie. Its about Johnny Cash, who is well known to many people throughout the spectrum. Walk The Line gets people from Middle-America as well as big cities to see it. It has big stars like Reese Witherspoon in it. It also wasn't R-rated either.

In other words, Walk The Line had inherent broad appeal that V For Vendetta does not.

Plus it had two holiday weekends where lots more people are going to the movies and needed alternative programming for Harry Potter, Narnia, etc.

V obviouls has the R rating which limits it reaching the 100 million mark.
But having it open in IMAX is a good thing

IMAX doesn't make much of a difference. V isn't really the type of movie people are going to go out of their way to see on I-max.

Antonello Blueberry

03-19-2006, 02:43 PM

No. Watchmen ain't going to be cheap.

Plus, unless V For Vendetta has an absolutely fabulous weekend, its not going to make near the amounts everyone here predicted it would.

Generally, most comic book movies drop 50% or more in their second weekend. Just about all of them do save for the Spider-man films. Even Sin City, which opened up much stronger than V For Vendeta and made around...what? 70 million, 75 million?
Watchmen was budgeted at 100 millions. WB is waiting to see if the public is receptive to this kind of material, dark comic-book with a political subtext, to greenlight it.
James McTeigue is lobbying to be the director of the Watchmen movie.
And we're not talking of a blockbuster kind of comi-book movie like X-Men. Word of mouth is good, even in Italy I heard from a couple of persons that the theatres showing V are packed. So I'm not sure if we'll see such a dramatic drop next week.

TheVileOne

03-19-2006, 02:58 PM

Watchmen was budgeted at 100 millions. WB is waiting to see if the public is receptive to this kind of material, dark comic-book with a political subtext, to greenlight it.

We'll see. I don't think the studio is going to just cough up $100 million for a movie like Watchmen without trying to make a lot of changes to it or get it at a more PG-13 level.

The moviegoing public seemed pretty receptive to Sin City, but again, that one was made for cheaper than most comic book movies, and it still only made less than $80 million.

James McTeigue is lobbying to be the director of the Watchmen movie. And we're not talking of a blockbuster kind of comi-book movie like X-Men. Word of mouth is good, even in Italy I heard from a couple of persons that the theatres showing V are packed. So I'm not sure if we'll see such a dramatic drop next week.

That's overseas. V is probably the type of movie that will play well in Europe and overseas.

Darthphere

03-19-2006, 04:21 PM

Im sorry but Watchmen needs not to be touched. Honestly, the 12 part mini-series idea is the only way to go. Theres way too much material to be covered and unlike V, all the plots and storylines are necessary for Watchmen, you cant cut anything out. Its at its core a murder mystery, all the elements need to be present.

Antonello Blueberry

03-19-2006, 04:37 PM

We'll see. I don't think the studio is going to just cough up $100 million for a movie like Watchmen without trying to make a lot of changes to it or get it at a more PG-13 level.
The moviegoing public seemed pretty receptive to Sin City, but again, that one was made for cheaper than most comic book movies, and it still only made less than $80 million.
That's overseas. V is probably the type of movie that will play well in Europe and overseas.
You still think that just the US theatrical grosses make the income of the movie.
The money a blockbuster movie makes in theatre in the US is (as average) a fifth ot the total income for the studio.

BatJeff7786

03-19-2006, 05:35 PM

Watchmen was budgeted at 100 millions. WB is waiting to see if the public is receptive to this kind of material, dark comic-book with a political subtext, to greenlight it.
James McTeigue is lobbying to be the director of the Watchmen movie.
And we're not talking of a blockbuster kind of comi-book movie like X-Men. Word of mouth is good, even in Italy I heard from a couple of persons that the theatres showing V are packed. So I'm not sure if we'll see such a dramatic drop next week.
I haven't read Watchmen, but from what I've read, the David Hayter script is so good that even Alan Moore approved it. If they are smart, they would go with that script.BTW, almost all the shows for V for Vendetta at my theater (near Los Angeles) were sold out, and the general public seems to like it, so I agree that it will probably have a strong, if not better run next weekend.

Nivek

03-19-2006, 05:59 PM

From comingSoon.net

Warner Bros. Pictures' graphic novel adaptation V For Vendetta, starring Natalie Portman and Hugo Weaving, topped the weekend box office with an estimated $26.1 million from 3,365 theaters. The action-thriller averaged a strong $7,766 per theater. The film, which is also playing in IMAX theaters, was adapted by Andy and Larry Wachowski, creators of "The Matrix" franchise, and directed by James McTeigue.

Darthphere

03-19-2006, 06:01 PM

I haven't read Watchmen, but from what I've read, the David Hayter script is so good that even Alan Moore approved it. If they are smart, they would go with that script.BTW, almost all the shows for V for Vendetta at my theater (near Los Angeles) were sold out, and the general public seems to like it, so I agree that it will probably have a strong, if not better run next weekend.

David Hayter's script was for a 12 part HBO like series.

GL's Light

03-19-2006, 06:08 PM

Darthphere

03-19-2006, 06:10 PM

No, Hayter's script was for a feature film. The script ran 134 pages - Stax had a review of it at IGN.

On V For Vendetta: MCN has the weekend estimate at $ 24.7 million. We'll have to wait for the actuals tomorrow to see who's right.

Im pretty sure hsi draft was for a mini-series. Ill have to double check since I dont rust IGN ever.;):up:

GL's Light

03-19-2006, 06:15 PM

CHUD also ran a script review of Hayter's screenplay - again it was a feature film screenplay. Everything I've heard about it was that it was for a feature.

Darthphere

03-19-2006, 06:18 PM

CHUD also ran a script review of Hayter's screenplay - again it was a feature film screenplay. Everything I've heard about it was that it was for a feature.

Ok, I see where I got confused. Hayter wanted to split it into two movies when he first started doing the scripts back in 2001, his 3rd draft in 2003 is the one you speaketh of.:up:

THE MR. TERRIFIC

03-19-2006, 08:04 PM

It's #1, that's pretty cool.

Karea07

03-19-2006, 08:10 PM

I hope it makes a lot more money :up:

TheVileOne

03-19-2006, 08:37 PM

You still think that just the US theatrical grosses make the income of the movie.
The money a blockbuster movie makes in theatre in the US is (as average) a fifth ot the total income for the studio.

And yet Warner Brothes still canned a Constantine sequel even though the first movie did very well overseas and more than doubled its box office.

In other words, I doubt any movie studio is going to give the greenlight to a $100+ million Watchmen movie.

War Party

03-19-2006, 08:44 PM

Yeah it's cool that the movie was #1 this weekend, but it doesn't mean as much as it used to. It seems like now that it isn't too difficult to have a #1 movie these days.It would mean something if it were to be for more than 2 weeks. Inside Man is probably going to be #1 next week, and V is probably going to have no legs. I hope that doesn't happen though, because I loved this film.

TheVileOne

03-20-2006, 12:46 PM

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=14968

I think a lot of people over-predicted this one. There should've been at least a "less than $100 million" or more than $50 million option on this poll.

I see the movie getting around $60-80 million, unless it has an absolutely FABULOUS second weekend. I suppose that this is pretty respectable.

However, I think the marks for this movie need to see that most comic book movies these days, even if they have strong openings, almost always have big dropoffs in the second weekend. Even dark and violent ones like Sin City.

The Spider-man movies are among the FEW exceptions.

Octoberist

03-20-2006, 01:34 PM

Also, it's a Rated R movie. With Sin City, it's going to break records, but their glory will not work with the box office; It will live on....in our HEARTS!

GL's Light

03-20-2006, 08:52 PM

The actuals are in: $ 25,642,340.

Deathlok2001

03-21-2006, 08:09 AM

so is that number good or bad

GL's Light

03-21-2006, 08:38 AM

so is that number good or bad
It's within the expected range, although on the low end of that range. Studio tracking predicted an opening of $ 25-30 million.

The success of the film now rests on how good its legs are. A lot of genre films, especially those with R ratings, tend to be frontloaded (even when reviews and word of mouth are strong).

If V is similarly frontloaded it could end up with a multiplier of 2.5X, which would lead to a domestic gross of around $ 64 million. That should be the minimum that it'll gross.

If it holds up well it could have a multiplier of 3X, which would mean a domestic gross of $ 77 million. It's possible that it could develop even better legs, but I don't think it's likely.

$ 65-75 million domestic is the most likely range. With worldwide box office and DVD revenue it will certainly turn a profit. It won't be one of the smash hits of the year, it won't be in the Top 20, but it will be a solid success.

I SEE SPIDEY

03-21-2006, 09:23 AM

It did well, but i'm a little surprised (with Imax and all) it could match SinCity's opening. I think that it only went up 18% on saturday because St. Patties day hurt it's friday numbers. I don't think good legs are instore for it. Hope I'm wrong.

Cinemaman

03-21-2006, 09:45 AM

The Matrix made $27m opening weekend, for V it isn't so bad.

I think it will hardly get $105m domesticly and $128m in overseas.

I SEE SPIDEY

03-21-2006, 10:12 AM

The Matrix made $27m opening weekend, for V it isn't so bad.

I think it will hardly get $105m domesticly and $128m in overseas.I wouldn't compare it to the matrix. I liked V but it didn't come close to the Matrix in my eyes. The lack of action will surely hurt it's legs.

Agentsands77

03-21-2006, 10:38 AM

I hope they never make a film of WATCHMEN. Too much material would be missing. I know Hayter's script is supposedly phenomenal (with the excellent "Watchmaker" chapter entirely intact), but there's just too much. The work would lose so much of it's wonderful complexity.

WATCHMEN is the greatest graphic novel work of all time and I just can't see a film being anything but a disappointment in comparison.

Cinemaman

03-21-2006, 11:11 AM

The Guard

03-21-2006, 12:46 PM

David Hayter's WATCHMEN script was indeed, fantastic. Very faithful, hit on most, if not all, of the important points, and kept the essence of WATCHMEN intact, and then some. Later versions of his script did away with many of the problems people had with the script's earlier drafts.

I hope they never make a film of WATCHMEN. Too much material would be missing. I know Hayter's script is supposedly phenomenal (with the excellent "Watchmaker" chapter entirely intact), but there's just too much. The work would lose so much of it's wonderful complexity.

No, it wouldn't. The work wouldn't lose ANY of it's complexity. And this is the kind of thinking that fans of any material have GOT to get past when it comes to the material adapted. WATCHMEN would not lose any of it's complexity, because the FILM does not alter the book itself. Did the movie version of FROM HELL make the graphic novel "From Hell" any less impressive? Hell no. The movie, which was pretty solid, but made numerous changes, was based on the book, and did what it could, given the demands of screentime and story space, to keep the main thrust of the story intact, while introducing a whole new generation of readers to Moore's work on some level. Because you'd better believe the movie made people go "I have to read this".

No matter what happens with WATCHMEN (and I have every reason to believe it will be the most powerful comic book film ever made), the book itself will remain one of the best comic book works of all time, if not the best. What would happen is that a wonderfully complex and powerful and layered film would be made, that happens not to be AS complex and chock full of layers as the book. Now, seeing as how damn near any movie I've ever seen lacks the complexity and power and layering of the books they are based on, how the hell is this a bad thing? Nevermind that, like with FROM HELL and numerous other adaptions that have been made into major motion pictures, many people who otherwise would never have experienced WATCHMEN as a graphic novel would go "I have to read this", and be introduced to the true joy of WATCHMEN through that route. Again, how is this a bad thing?

The "If it's not a perfect adaption, it's not a good one" attitude sickens me. People continue to ignore that it is not possible to make perfect adaptions, given the nature of the mediums involved.

WATCHMEN is the greatest graphic novel work of all time and I just can't see a film being anything but a disappointment in comparison.

What movie hasn't been a disappointment compared to the book it was based on? Try not to compare the film to the book on every detail. That's an absurd practice.

Agentsands77

03-21-2006, 01:04 PM

No, it wouldn't. The work wouldn't lose ANY of it's complexity. And this is the kind of thinking that fans of any material have GOT to get past when it comes to the material adapted. WATCHMEN would not lose any of it's complexity, because the FILM does not alter the book itself. Did the movie version of FROM HELL make the graphic novel "From Hell" any less impressive? Hell no. The movie, which was pretty solid, but made numerous changes, was based on the book, and did what it could, given the demands of screentime and story space, to keep the main thrust of the story intact, while introducing a whole new generation of readers to Moore's work on some level. Because you'd better believe the movie made people go "I have to read this".
Let's face it, the film would *not* be as complex as it's graphic novel counterpart. WATCHMEN as a graphic novel cannot be devalued by the film, but I couldn't help but feel that no matter how well done the film was, I'd just miss so much of the excess material. As far as I'm concerned, there isn't a moment in WATCHMEN that just isn't pure gold.

And for the record, I really liked the film version of V FOR VENDETTA, which I thought was actually superior to the graphic novel at certain moments.

The "If it's not a perfect adaption, it's not a good one" attitude sickens me. People continue to ignore that it is not possible to make perfect adaptions, given the nature of the mediums involved.
I am not a "perfect adaptation" mongerer. I tend to give a lot of room for adaptations.

If a WATCHMEN film is made, I'll probably go to the theatres, fall in love with it, add it to my collection, and watch it over and over again. I'm just wary of it - if they're going to do WATCHMEN, they better do it well, and I'm so afraid that a film wouldn't live up to the graphic novel. I'm not prepared to give that adaptation the leeway I gave V FOR VENDETTA.

The Guard

03-21-2006, 01:23 PM

EDIT: Wrong thread.

The Guard

03-21-2006, 01:31 PM

Let's face it, the film would *not* be as complex as it's graphic novel counterpart.

No, it wouldn't. What film ever is/ever has been? The film adaption of WATCHMEN will still kick the crap out of pretty much any comic book movie/adventure movie/philosophical drama ever made.

WATCHMEN as a graphic novel cannot be devalued by the film, but I couldn't help but feel that no matter how well done the film was, I'd just miss so much of the excess material.

Why? I mean seriously, there are certain aspects of the story that simply are not neccessary to tell an amazing story.

And if you have your copy of WATCHMEN, appreciate what they put onscreen and read the graphic novel to reassure yourself that it is still an amazing work. Film and comic books are two very different mediums, with different demands in translating them.

As far as I'm concerned, there isn't a moment in WATCHMEN that just isn't pure gold.

Agreed. And this is true of a lot of books. But how would a movie filled with moments of pure gold except for a few of them quality as a failure?

And for the record, I really liked the film version of V FOR VENDETTA, which I thought was actually superior to the graphic novel at certain moments.

So did I. And couldn't a similar approach to WATCHMEN work well? Something that keeps the essences rigidly intact, follows the main storylines, and seeks to make WATCHMEN even more timeless or relevant (most versions of the script are even more faithful than V FOR VENDETTA was to it's source material).

I am not a "perfect adaptation" mongerer. I tend to give a lot of room for adaptations.

I'm not neccessarily referring to you. But I'm sure you realize that this attitude does exist.

If a WATCHMEN film is made, I'll probably go to the theatres, fall in love with it, add it to my collection, and watch it over and over again. I'm just wary of it - if they're going to do WATCHMEN, they better do it well, and I'm so afraid that a film wouldn't live up to the graphic novel. I'm not prepared to give that adaptation the leeway I gave V FOR VENDETTA.

You probably won't have to, but you should, at least, be realistic about what will translate well to screen from page. As I said, most drafts have been extremely faithful to the source material.

Agentsands77

03-21-2006, 11:18 PM

No, it wouldn't. What film ever is/ever has been? The film adaption of WATCHMEN will still kick the crap out of pretty much any comic book movie/adventure movie/philosophical drama ever made.
Perhaps. I'm not sure that it would without all the complexity. A well-made WATCHMEN would sure as hell be the best comic book film ever made, but the best philosophical or adventure film? There's some pretty tough competition in that category. It definitely has a shot, though.

Why? I mean seriously, there are certain aspects of the story that simply are not neccessary to tell an amazing story.
Of course. I wouldn't want to see the whole "comic strip within a comic strip," etc. I'm more or less worried about losing some of the depth to each of the characters - for it's the characters that make WATCHMEN work for me, and there are just so many layers there.

I haven't read the script, but it would just seem to me that the characters would feel somewhat shortchanged, and I'd have a hard time accepting that with these characters that I love so dearly.

So did I. And couldn't a similar approach to WATCHMEN work well? Something that keeps the essences rigidly intact, follows the main storylines, and seeks to make WATCHMEN even more timeless or relevant (most versions of the script are even more faithful than V FOR VENDETTA was to it's source material).
I'm not sure. V FOR VENDETTA changed a *a lot*, and honestly, I wouldn't WATCHMEN to do a lot to change things aside from leaving unnecessary stuff out. I wouldn't want to see a huge restructuring as the film adaptation of V FOR VENDETTA. I'd want to see WATCHMEN approached with a similar love and care for the source material to what Peter Jackson gave LORD OF THE RINGS, but even better crafted than those films were.

If it's not way more faithful than V FOR VENDETTA was, I'll be disappointed. It's one thing to change around V FOR VENDETTA, which I didn't think was the end-all, be-all of graphic novels (I think there are many elements of VENDETTA that don't work well), but with WATCHMEN, I'm not prepared to give anywhere near the same amount of leeway.

TheVileOne

03-25-2006, 04:18 PM

ThreeOfAKind

03-25-2006, 05:00 PM

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/daily/chart/

Friday estimate for V For Vendetta is about $3.9 million. V is estimated at 3rd place for Friday.

As I predicted, it will most likely have a 50% dropoff this weekend.

Actually, that's just flat out wrong. V for Vendetta is actually now likely to have under a 50% drop off for the weekend. The approximate guess was about 50%, the average for the genre is about 60%. Vendetta is likely to do about a 44-48% decrease, which is very solid for this type of movie.

And the 3rd place will assuredly become 2nd by the end of the weekend. PG13 horror flicks always do extremely well on Friday's, there is no doubt in my mind (And any sane person's, for that matter) that V for Vendetta will dominate "Stay Alive" on Saturday and Sunday.

TheVileOne

03-25-2006, 05:03 PM

Actually, that's just flat out wrong. V for Vendetta is actually now likely to have under a 50% drop off for the weekend. The approximate guess was about 50%, the average for the genre is about 60%. Vendetta is likely to do about a 44-48% decrease, which is very solid for this type of movie.

And the 3rd place will assuredly become 2nd by the end of the weekend. PG13 horror flicks always do extremely well on Friday's, there is no doubt in my mind (And any sane person's, for that matter) that V for Vendetta will dominate "Stay Alive" on Saturday and Sunday.

We'll see, but I did say ABOUT 50%. 48% is pretty close to 50, bleh :p .

superion

03-25-2006, 09:39 PM

It made $8,742,504 its opening Friday.

It made $3,970,000 this Friday.

Thats a drop of 54.6% per the numbers from box office mojo.

War Party

03-25-2006, 11:55 PM

The less money it makes in theaters, the quicker we get it on dvd. Even though I would love to see it make a lot of money. Looking forward to it anyway though.

ThreeOfAKind

03-26-2006, 12:05 PM

BOM has the drop at 51%, HSX has the drop at 49% and SBD should have the drop around 48%.

It did tear apart Stay Alive for the remainder of the weekend though, as planned.

From here on out you will see if the movie has good "legs". The third fourth and fifth weekend is really when "legs" comes into play.

TheVileOne

03-26-2006, 01:23 PM

Nivek

03-26-2006, 05:27 PM

The god's did listen to my wishes, Larry the Cable-guys movie wasn't even in the top 5!

I was actually worried it would've been the number 1 film this weekend.

Cinemaman

03-27-2006, 06:53 AM

Now i think it will hardly make $85m, what is good for movie with $55m budget.

Nivek

03-27-2006, 07:55 AM

Well, I hope it does well, but I must point out that V is a stand alone movie. It's not like Batman, Spider-Man, Superman, or Daredevil where it's trying to establish an audience for possible sequels. Concidering how box office is changing, and that this isn't a summer film, I think it did damn good, myself.

GL's Light

03-27-2006, 08:04 AM

It looks like it'll top out somewhere between $ 65 - 75 m. Whether it ends up a slight disappointment or a solid success now rests in how it does in foreign markets. I thought it would do better in foreign markets than domestically, but it's off to a relatively poor start in most territories.

Cinemaman

03-27-2006, 08:13 AM

My forecast.

Domestic: $85m.
Overseas: $58m.
Worldwide: $143m.

Nivek

03-27-2006, 08:25 AM

Still, for the $54 million budget, and given it's very touchy subject matter, thats is still damn good. 3X the budget in Hollywood justifies it being a hit.

Darthphere

03-27-2006, 08:26 AM

Still, for the $54 million budget, and given it's very touchy subject matter, thats is still damn good. 3X the budget in Hollywood justifies it being a hit.

Thats not a rule of thumb but yeah.:up:

GL's Light

03-27-2006, 08:28 AM

Still, for the $54 million budget, and given it's very touchy subject matter, thats is still damn good. 3X the budget in Hollywood justifies it being a hit.
That's true - if it makes 3X its budget. Not clear yet that it will. The worldwide box office could be 2X its budget, which wouldn't be that great. We'll have to wait for more data before judging the level of its success.

Nivek

03-27-2006, 08:34 AM

Well, thats why people are quick to label films as bombs anymore, because they dont see where the money goes. Something like Kong is labelled as a bomb because it "only" pulled in $500 million really just shows how retarded people judge box office as some sort of gauge. Theres not any need for a sequel for Kong, it's a one shot, why does Box office really even matter when you stop and think about it? I can see for establishing a franchise, but every genre film doesn't need to be pulling in globs of cash to justify it being a good film.

And besides, it's not like it was 10-15 years ago, people know it will be out on DVD in 4-6 months so they can watch it at home on their 52" HD flatscreen with surround sound without having to deal with other people and bad seating. You want to know why theres a box office slump? Because after seeing it once, people are more willing to wait for DVD than they were VHS years ago, or dealing with theatre crowds again and again. I know personally I cant wait to own it.

And also as a note, films where the title character dies are never going to bring back that much B.O., its too much of a downer man.

Cinemaman

03-27-2006, 08:38 AM

For VFV will not be hard to make more than budget is.

GL's Light

03-27-2006, 08:55 AM

Well, thats why people are quick to label films as bombs anymore, because they dont see where the money goes. Something like Kong is labelled as a bomb because it "only" pulled in $500 million really just shows how retarded people judge box office as some sort of gauge. Theres not any need for a sequel for Kong, it's a one shot, why does Box office really even matter when you stop and think about it? I can see for establishing a franchise, but every genre film doesn't need to be pulling in globs of cash to justify it being a good film.
Hollywood has a pack mentality. If a certain genre throws up a string of box office disappointments then they'll be reticent to greenlight more films of that genre. That's why I pay close attention to the BO of comic book films. It's a matter completely separate from quality.

Nivek

03-27-2006, 09:11 AM

Hollywood has a pack mentality. If a certain genre throws up a string of box office disappointments then they'll be reticent to greenlight more films of that genre. That's why I pay close attention to the BO of comic book films. It's a matter completely separate from quality.

But this Hollywood Studio Accountant mentality of judging success from the last 10 years is on the way out. You cant really figure Box office sales as much, concidering technology has finally gotten to the point where Joe Average can have a better film watching exsperience in his own home. They have to start looking at the revenue generated by DVD sales as well. I know the number of films I see in the theatre a year has dropped significantly, mostly because of inconsiderate people inhibiting my film exsperience, the quality of projected films, and conditions of the theatre itself.

GL's Light

03-27-2006, 09:27 AM

But this Hollywood Studio Accountant mentality of judging success from the last 10 years is on the way out. You cant really figure Box office sales as much, concidering technology has finally gotten to the point where Joe Average can have a better film watching exsperience in his own home. They have to start looking at the revenue generated by DVD sales as well. I know the number of films I see in the theatre a year has dropped significantly, mostly because of inconsiderate people inhibiting my film exsperience, the quality of projected films, and conditions of the theatre itself.
I almost always wait for DVD myself, for the same reasons you outlined.

DVD revenue is extremely important, and it is taken into account by the studios. The problem is the enormous cost of making, marketing, and distributing films means that a film needs to perform well both at the theatrical BO and on DVD to be judged a success.

Many films are still in the red when their theatrical run ends, and DVD revenue has to overcome that deficit and then some to push the film into profit. This is even true of a lot of films considered to be hits.

Nivek

03-27-2006, 09:44 AM

Agreed, I just get sick of the people calling a film like Kong a bomb.

You want a bomb, look at that Larry the Cable Guy film, now THAT sir, is a bomb. I should've been more supportive because it was filmed here last year (support the local film making community and all that jazz), but I can only take so much.

But I never understood why people suddenly started weighing the box office draw over word of mouth and critical praise for how good a film is. It shows alot of people watched it, but Im more curious to who wants to see it again as a better gauge.

Octoberist

03-27-2006, 09:53 AM

A.) V for Vendetta is not meant to be a blockbuster. I never had the notion that it would break records. However, 'V' like 'Sin City' before it, will be a moderate hit (for a March) but it's sucess will lie with it's critical raves.

B.) Is Larry suppose to be a Cable Guy...or a Health Inspector? Either way, the movie looked like rubbish! :)

Nivek

03-27-2006, 10:02 AM

A.) V for Vendetta is not meant to be a blockbuster. I never had the notion that it would break records. However, 'V' like 'Sin City' before it, will be a moderate hit (for a March) but it's sucess will lie with it's critical raves.

Agreed, and like the $40 million Sin City, it's not a huge budgeted movie, so it's easier to establish as a hit.

B.) Is Larry suppose to be a Cable Guy...or a Health Inspector? Either way, the movie looked like rubbish! :)

It was crap, and maybe he did both jobs, he is a smelly Sanford Florida redneck after all. Still, I exspected it to do better than it did concidering the mindset of middle america, but I was happy to hear it premired in 7th place.

Octoberist

03-27-2006, 10:08 AM

It's sad to see that he is 'representin' Flordia, flannel and all! :)

Nivek

03-27-2006, 11:47 AM

It's sad to see that he is 'representin' Flordia, flannel and all! :)

It's either him or Jeb Bush as our posterboy, I'll go for the guy who smells like right guard and fish bait. Thats Larry for those who dont know...

Darthphere

03-27-2006, 11:48 AM

It's either him or Jeb Bush as our posterboy, I'll go for the guy who smells like right guard and fish bait. Thats Larry for those who dont know...

Elian Gonzalez is a better represenatative for our great state of Florida.:up:

ultimatefan

03-27-2006, 01:33 PM

GL's Light

03-27-2006, 03:14 PM

With the recent result, V has pretty much paid its production budget in two weekends, which is a pretty good result. It should be about as successful as Sin City. USA and UK are probably the toughest markets for the movie, due to the controversy over the terrorism theme. It should do well in most territories.
That's not the way box office receipts work. The studio only gets roughly half of the box office take, and that has to cover the costs incurred by the production, marketing and distribution of the film.

The total cost incurred on V for Vendetta is probably around $ 85-90 million. That means its breakeven point is somewhere around $ 170-180 million worldwide. It'll likely still be in the red at the end of its theatrical run. But it should turn a profit after its DVD revenues roll in.

superion

03-27-2006, 05:58 PM

That's not the way box office receipts work. The studio only gets roughly half of the box office take, and that has to cover the costs incurred by the production, marketing and distribution of the film.

The total cost incurred on V for Vendetta is probably around $ 85-90 million. That means its breakeven point is somewhere around $ 170-180 million worldwide. It'll likely still be in the red at the end of its theatrical run. But it should turn a profit after its DVD revenues roll in.
Today 07:33 PM

Glad someone pointed that out. If the measure of a movies success was simply taking the gross receipts and subtracting the budget 90% of the movies released would make money.

As for V I think it will top out at about $75 mill in the US which takes it halfway to breakeven. The foreign gross will determine whether it is a success or not. It's opening in Britain is pretty dissappointing for a "British" movie so I'am not sure it will make another $75 mill worldwide. We will have to see what the 2nd weeks foreign gross will be.

Of course this is assuming a advertising budget of only $20 mill or so. Unforunately BO mojo no longer gives this number.

'V'

03-27-2006, 07:01 PM

not enough TV spots for this film me thinks

Nivek

03-27-2006, 07:33 PM

GL's Light

03-27-2006, 07:45 PM

Are you people studio number crunchers? accountants? It's doing fine, sheesh.

Hell, when you really think about, it is a rare thing in the entertainment industry an investment returns 100% of profit back to the studio. This film has such a modest budget, it will be easier to get a profit back, and hopefully we will see a special edition DVD sooner than later.
We're discussing the box office, which is the specific intent of the thread. Now I'm a bit of a box office geek and if I'm going to discuss it I'm going to do so in accordance with the realities of the industry, and not just by throwing around fallacious assumptions. The film may end up doing fine and it may not. But how much you like or dislike a film really shouldn't have any bearing on a discussion of how it's performing commercially.

TheVileOne

03-27-2006, 09:10 PM

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/?yr=2006&wknd=12&p=.htm

Actuals. 52% dropoff for the second weekend. Any comments on me being FLAT OUT WRONG ThreeOfAKind.

The movie doesn't look to be doing all that hot overseas. Which kind of surprises me noting the cast and subject matter.

Basically, I guess you can say the movie is doing OK. HOWEVER, it is performing well below what just about everyone on these forums predicted it would. It doesn't seem to be making much of an impact that the raging reVolutionaries wanted it to either.

That ridiculous poll that said over 150 million, over 200 million, umm no. This is NOT X-men or Spider-man.

ThreeOfAKind

03-27-2006, 09:48 PM

Actuals. 52% dropoff for the second weekend. Any comments on me being FLAT OUT WRONG ThreeOfAKind.

Yes, I was wrong on that point. However I wish you'd stop typing it in all caps like I was yelling at you, or to insinuate I typed it like that in the first place. I was approximately 4% off.

Mediocre weekend.

Next week will tell whether or not this movie will have a solid run or a bad one.

HoratioRome

03-27-2006, 10:09 PM

TheVileOne

03-27-2006, 11:20 PM

Well the point of this thread is not the quality of the material, but the box office stats and reception ;) .

HoratioRome, you know what a good deal of the mainstream audience thinks about the movie? Even the anti-Bush people? They can't get past the mask and think its clownish. GRANTED, this is a rather silly reason, but you know...that's the reality of it.

But just FYI guys, if this makes you feel better about the BO...for most comic book movies, this is pretty much the standard. A strong or decent opening weekend, and a 50% or more dropoff in the second weekend. It was the same for Hellboy, Constantine, Daredevil, and numerous others. The Spider-man movies are the RARE exceptions.

Outside of Spider-man and the X-men films, comic books films don't seem to have as much mainstream appeal with general moviegoing audiences. But even the X-men films still had sizeable dropoffs in their second weekends.

The problem was, you guys were just so rabid and hyped about this movie, you misjudged its BO potential. It happens, as it will happen again with Ghost Rider and its rabid fans ;) .

Cinemaman

03-28-2006, 04:17 AM

Cinemaman

03-28-2006, 04:20 AM

Glad someone pointed that out. If the measure of a movies success was simply taking the gross receipts and subtracting the budget 90% of the movies released would make money.

As for V I think it will top out at about $75 mill in the US which takes it halfway to breakeven. The foreign gross will determine whether it is a success or not. It's opening in Britain is pretty dissappointing for a "British" movie so I'am not sure it will make another $75 mill worldwide. We will have to see what the 2nd weeks foreign gross will be.

Of course this is assuming a advertising budget of only $20 mill or so. Unforunately BO mojo no longer gives this number.

I think it even will make $140-155m. in worldwide.

$50-65m in overseas will be enough.

But DVD will help VFV to make really big money.

Cinemaman

03-28-2006, 04:21 AM

not enough TV spots for this film me thinks

There was only SB-spot, what you want?

And I don't think VFV needed tv-spots.

Cinemaman

03-28-2006, 04:29 AM

as much as I love this movie I'm saddened by the fact that it hasn't done better. I'm dissapointed in the 50% drop off. Though I never expected V to be a block buster I thought for sure word of mouth would have helped it not drop off so much.
Problem is this movie will dissapoint many of the peopel/kids going to see the "latest action thriller". I heard a couple a kids make comments like "not enough action, too much dialogue".

There is a HUGE revolutionary anti Bush market which has not tapped into this movie yet. there is still hope that they will discover it an the movie will prove to have some legs.
I know I'm recommending it to everyone I know.

but the truth is that the true measure of success for V for Vendetta is not how much money it makes (we must remember the book wasn't a hot seller either).
It is rather the quality of the material.
in that sense V is a HUGE success which I'm sure the Wachowskies are happy with.

I think VFV is movie for critics, it should have more positive reviews to be success movie.

And also VFV isn't movie for box office, remember this.

But British critics don't think it is good movie, why? Because VFV says true. We should understamnd terrorist's point of view and only then we can judge him.

I think VFV is one of greatest movies with logical and philosophical senses.

Fight Club also was bad movie for critics, but now it is one of the greatest psychological thrillers ever.

I think critics are underestimating VFV. But then, after 4-5 years, everybody will say it was great movie.

Octoberist

03-28-2006, 04:41 AM

Cinemaman

03-28-2006, 04:51 AM

V for Vendetta is not meant to be the next Spider-Man or X-Men. It's a self containted story with political themes. I bet you Warner Bros knew that it won't be a huge money maker, but hopefully, it's critical sucess can give it some longevity on DVD and perhaps, cult status.

Again I will agree with you. But it also have negative reviews.

But I think the same situation was with fight Club.

Soon critics will say VFV was great movie.

But I think VFV have good raiting in Rotten Tomatoes.

HoratioRome

03-28-2006, 08:14 AM

I SEE SPIDEY

03-28-2006, 10:31 AM

I liked the movie, but lets face facts, It's boxoffice run is over. It doesn't have Matrix like legs. Is the movie going to make money for the WB? Sure! But after that huge marketing push it's a big disappointment.

Nivek

03-28-2006, 10:59 AM

Darthphere

03-28-2006, 11:51 AM

Again I will agree with you. But it also have negative reviews.

But I think the same situation was with fight Club.

Soon critics will say VFV was great movie.

But I think VFV have good raiting in Rotten Tomatoes.

All movies get bad reviews.

I SEE SPIDEY

03-28-2006, 11:52 AM

Guess not, Nivek.

I SEE SPIDEY

03-28-2006, 12:02 PM

This thread is about boxoffice, not reviews.

When are people going to learn the good reviews does not equal good boxoffice?

Personally, I don't care what critics like one way or another. My opinion is all that matters. Also the critics sometimes give movies good reviews if they think that big boxoffice is on the horizon. Reloaded is a prime example of this deceit. It was suppose to be a 350+ million dollar grosser that everyone would love. When the puplic saw and hated it, they bashed the 3rd one, which in reality isn't much worse than the second one.

Darthphere

03-28-2006, 12:06 PM

I SEE SPIDEY

03-28-2006, 12:10 PM

They both suck, it doesnt matter which sucks more. Its essentially what youre saying right?:confused:My post isn't the least bit confusing.

Darthphere

03-28-2006, 12:17 PM

My post isn't the least bit confusing.

:confused:

TheVileOne

03-28-2006, 02:08 PM

V for Vendetta is not meant to be the next Spider-Man or X-Men. It's a self containted story with political themes. I bet you Warner Bros knew that it won't be a huge money maker, but hopefully, it's critical sucess can give it some longevity on DVD and perhaps, cult status.

I never said it was, but the people on these forums seemed to think it would.

And I wonder why the BO Prediction thread only allowed for poll answers of only hundreds of millions or more.

Fran

03-28-2006, 03:07 PM

TheVileOne

03-28-2006, 04:07 PM

I think V has a great chance to break 100 mil.
Look at Batman Begins: It had a weak opening, compared to what people were predicting (it was around 45 mil I believe). This movie has made around 60 mil already, and everyone I have seen it with loved it, and went again. It seems like it is getting great word of mouth, and it has a great chance to break 100 mil, if it keeps making around 10 mil or so for the next couple of weeks. A steady stream is what can make this movie successful.

Wrong. It's only made $47 million in the US and $55 million worldwide. NOT $60 million.

Batman Begin's opening weekend was $48.7 million. But it was released on a Wednesday, giving it a first five day total of around $72 million.

Batman Begins, the reason it made $205 million in the US is quite simple. Strong weekdays, good word of mouth, and lower weekend to weekend drops in BO percentage.

In its second weekend, Batman Begins BO drop was 43%. That's pretty significant for a summer tentpole and a big budget Hollywood movie. It maintained those low drops from weekend to weekend. Doing continually well over weekdays as well, and a nice boost from the July 4th weekend.

In V For Vendetta's second weekend? It drops OVER 50%. Know what over 50% dropoff means? It means that all the people that planned on or really wanted to see it have done so. A 52% dropoff means that the movie is NOT getting very strong word of mouth.

The movie isn't going to break $100 million in the US. $65-75 million, tops.

Antonello Blueberry

03-29-2006, 06:43 AM

A 52% dropoff means that the movie is NOT getting very strong word of mouth.

And that's something I can't explain. Given the high ratings on the SHH! poll and on IMDB, the viewers did enjoy the movie. So why isn't there a strong word of mouth?
And BoxofficeMojo updated the International BO for V, it's now at 17,600,000$ for a total gross of 64,892,260 $

Nivek

03-29-2006, 09:16 AM

And that's something I can't explain. Given the high ratings on the SHH! poll and on IMDB, the viewers did enjoy the movie. So why isn't there a strong word of mouth?
And BoxofficeMojo updated the International BO for V, it's now at 17,600,000$ for a total gross of 64,892,260 $

So, in general Box office it's past the point where the studio should see profit. Good.

As for the lack of "word of mouth", it's still the number 2 movie here. It's not like it's completly done!

TheVileOne

03-29-2006, 10:23 AM

And that's something I can't explain. Given the high ratings on the SHH! poll and on IMDB, the viewers did enjoy the movie. So why isn't there a strong word of mouth?
And BoxofficeMojo updated the International BO for V, it's now at 17,600,000$ for a total gross of 64,892,260 $

Because those are fanboys and people on the internet. Not everyone votes on SHH and IMDB.

And the movie is not past the point for profit yet. Taking into account the marketing budget and the distribution budget.

GL's Light

03-29-2006, 10:41 AM

So, in general Box office it's past the point where the studio should see profit. Good.

As for the lack of "word of mouth", it's still the number 2 movie here. It's not like it's completly done!
It's nowhere close to profitability yet. As I explained in a previous post the studio only gets roughly half of the box office. The studio has made about $ 30 million so far against a production cost of $ 54 million and a likely cost of around $ 30 million for prints and advertising.

Darthphere

03-29-2006, 10:46 AM

Nivek

03-29-2006, 10:53 AM

And the movie is not past the point for profit yet. Taking into account the marketing budget and the distribution budget.

It pretty much is. Anyone ever wonder why Marketing budgets are not included with the production budgets? Two seporate budgets. After the film is screened by the marketing people, then they sit down and figure out the cost tally of marketing the film, including TV spots, posters, free screenings, ect. After the film is released, they meet again and figure out how much money they need to invest in a DVD due to how much intrest and revenue the film made in Box office, and subtracting how much money was put into marketing it. Studio wise, Marketing films is a troth, if those spots were not bought for V, it would be for another WB release. When you start throwing in marketing costs into films, your looking at it like "total cost spent", as opposed to the studios that are just looking at a return on the initial investment on the production. Thats why you never seen studios say stuff like "The budget on The Transporter 3 is $55 million" when it only cost $30 million to produse it.

As far as the "Studios only get half of that money", well, that used to be the case, but when you realise they get the majority of profit from DVD sales and it goes straight in their pocket, they look at a film with an $85 million springtime gross as being a huge hit when it starts selling on DVD. Especially given how the market is transforming every year because of DVD's and home theatres.

GL's Light

03-29-2006, 11:02 AM

It pretty much is. Anyone ever wonder why Marketing budgets are not included with the production budgets? Two seporate budgets. After the film is screened by the marketing people, then they sit down and figure out the cost tally of marketing the film, including TV spots, posters, free screenings, ect. After the film is released, they meet again and figure out how much money they need to invest in a DVD due to how much intrest and revenue the film made in Box office, and subtracting how much money was put into marketing it. Studio wise, Marketing films is a troth, if those spots were not bought for V, it would be for another WB release. When you start throwing in marketing costs into films, your looking at it like "total cost spent", as opposed to the studios that are just looking at a return on the initial investment on the production. Thats why you never seen studios say stuff like "The budget on The Transporter 3 is $55 million" when it only cost $30 million to produse it.
What a load of hooey. Of course they have to cover the costs of prints and advertising. They don't publicize the costs of advertising because they don't like public to know how many films don't turn a profit. They don't even really like to put out figures on production budgets for the same reason. And you're still ignoring the fact that the studio only gets roughly half of box office receipts.

Antonello Blueberry

03-29-2006, 11:05 AM

I was comparing the "V for Vendetta" boxoffice with that of Constantine and Sin City. It shows similar numbers in the first 2 week-end, so we can easily predict it will make like 70 millions in USA.

TheVileOne

03-29-2006, 11:08 AM

ABout word of mouth. I think the lack of word of motuh can be attained to two things, the media and its vendetta (pun) against it for its political views and the fact that the american movie-goer is not interested in politics. The other is, that its not a straight up action flick and thats when you get the "its boring" comments. Thats just my theory.

This thing you are talking about is non-existent. There is no media vendetta against this film. In fact, I'm surprised by the lack of media trumpeting and controversy of this movie for its content and subtext.

My guess is WB was hoping for tons of that to get more of a turnout for this film. But it didn't really happen.

Michael Moore or Farenheit 9/11 this movie is not.

GL's Light

03-29-2006, 11:09 AM

I was comparing the "V for Vendetta" boxoffice with that of Constantine and Sin City. It shows similar numbers in the first 2 week-end, so we can easily predict it will make like 70 millions in USA.
If it has the same multiplier as Sin City and Constantine (roughly 2.5X) then it'll end up with $ 65 million in North America. But the international box office for V for Venedetta has, so far, been much weaker than those two films.

Darthphere

03-29-2006, 11:10 AM

This thing you are talking about is non-existent. There is no media vendetta against this film. In fact, I'm surprised by the lack of media trumpeting and controversy of this movie for its content and subtext.

My guess is WB was hoping for tons of that to get more of a turnout for this film. But it didn't really happen.

Michael Moore or Farenheit 9/11 this movie is not.

Then you must not watc much cable news. It was on MSNBC, Fox News, CNN. Its all they talked about for a week.

Nivek

03-29-2006, 11:16 AM

What a load of hooey. Of course they have to cover the costs of prints and advertising. They don't publicize the costs of advertising because they don't like public to know how many films don't turn a profit. They don't even really like to put out figures on production budgets for the same reason. And you're still ignoring the fact that the studio only gets roughly half of box office receipts.

I did some freelance work for a marketing firm a couple years ago, and they did marketing for some Lions Gate films. They referred to the studio marketing as a "troth". I used to think (like you) that each film had it's own specific marketing budget tied to that film, but from what I gathered from the guys I was dealing with was that the studio has various marketing strategys for different films, but since it's a constant ongoing process, and no film had a set marketing budget they had to work from, just a percentage from that studio marketing troth according to what they think it will pull in in their opinion. So some films got more of a heavier share of that marketing a specific month, some got equel, some got very little. But it was never a matter of "this film only had $20 million to market it, we didn't exspect it to get this much buzz, we need to ask the studio for more money!". Chances are, any marketing budget for V wont be finalised and known till after it starts dropping off the radar. Then the accountants and number crunchers will see the whole "cost to promote" thing in perspective.

If you have any insight to marketing and studio promotion yourself, please correct me.

GL's Light

03-29-2006, 11:25 AM

I did some freelance work for a marketing firm a couple years ago, and they did marketing for some Lions Gate films. They referred to the studio marketing as a "troth". I used to think (like you) that each film had it's own specific marketing budget tied to that film, but from what I gathered from the guys I was dealing with was that the studio has various marketing strategys for different films, but since it's a constant ongoing process, and no film had a set marketing budget they had to work from. So some films got more of a heavier share of that marketing a specific month, some got equel, some got very little. But it was never a matter of "this film only had $20 million to market it, we didn't exspect it to get this much buzz, we need to ask the studio for more money!". Chances are, any marketing budget for V wont be finalised and known till after it starts dropping off the radar. Then the accountants and number crunchers will see the whole "cost to promote" thing in perspective.
That's all well and good, but each specific film is still given a certain amount of marketing dollars, whether those dollars are set in advance or toted up after the fact really makes no difference. If a film ends up with $ 30 million in marketing it has to justify that expenditure in the revenues it produces, just as it has to earn back the millions spent on striking prints if it's put into wide release.

And if you've had some contact with the film industry then you really should know that the studio doesn't get every dollar of the box office and that your claim that the film has already turned a profit isn't in the least bit accurate.

Antonello Blueberry

03-29-2006, 12:04 PM

That's all well and good, but each specific film is still given a certain amount of marketing dollars, whether those dollars are set in advance or toted up after the fact really makes no difference. If a film ends up with $ 30 million in marketing it has to justify that expenditure in the revenues it produces, just as it has to earn back the millions spent on striking prints if it's put into wide release.

And if you've had some contact with the film industry then you really should know that the studio doesn't get every dollar of the box office and that your claim that the film has already turned a profit isn't in the least bit accurate.
Maybe not accurate but spot on. With this kind of figures the studio already knows that the movie will make all its money back with worldwide grosses, DVD and Tv sales. And I'm sure they weren't sure about the amount of money they should spend on P&A before the good reviews from the Austin and Berlin previews. The movie was well marketed.

GL's Light

03-29-2006, 12:09 PM

Maybe not accurate but spot on. With this kind of figures the studio already knows that the movie will make all its money back with worldwide grosses, DVD and Tv sales. And I'm sure they weren't sure about the amount of money they should spend on P&A before the good reviews from the Austin and Berlin previews. The movie was well marketed.
If he'd said that the film will likely turn a profit after DVD and TV revenues then I would've agreed with him - but he claimed it had already made a profit just from theatrical box office, which just isn't the case.

J.Howlett

03-29-2006, 02:49 PM

It pains me to see that V isn't making the kind of money I think it should make.

It's one of the most interesting things about cinema. A film that gets lousy reviews and bad word of mouth can make 100 million sometimes and you wonder why?

But then a film like V comes along that is geniunely a very good film and nobody goes to see it.

Sometimes, I just don't get it.

Nivek

03-29-2006, 03:49 PM

If he'd said that the film will likely turn a profit after DVD and TV revenues then I would've agreed with him - but he claimed it had already made a profit just from theatrical box office, which just isn't the case.

So, in general Box office it's past the point where the studio should see profit.

This is exactly what I said, notice the bolded out? Should. Not is. It's not like it made $25 million and dropped off, either. It's too soon to see if it has legs to stand for 4 weeks in the top ten, but hey, it was number 2. Not number 7.

But again I feel the need to point out that it's only it's 2nd week of release here. This is March box office, not June, so I knew it wasn't going to do a $100 million weekend. And why the negativity, you people want it to fail? Do you think WB didn't do enough? Seriously, it's 2nd week of release, it's still number 2, it's already made it's budget back in B.O.,nothing worth while is coming out for a couple weeks, why all the dooming and glooming?

TheVileOne

03-29-2006, 04:40 PM

Then you must not watc much cable news. It was on MSNBC, Fox News, CNN. Its all they talked about for a week.

I find that hard to believe. I turned on CNN recently and they were trumpeting Charlie Sheen's 9/11 conspiracy theories, "Is it just me or did that look like it was a demolition?"

superion

03-29-2006, 04:53 PM

This is exactly what I said, notice the bolded out? Should. Not is. It's not like it made $25 million and dropped off, either. It's too soon to see if it has legs to stand for 4 weeks in the top ten, but hey, it was number 2. Not number 7.

But again I feel the need to point out that it's only it's 2nd week of release here. This is March box office, not June, so I knew it wasn't going to do a $100 million weekend. And why the negativity, you people want it to fail? Do you think WB didn't do enough? Seriously, it's 2nd week of release, it's still number 2, it's already made it's budget back in B.O.,nothing worth while is coming out for a couple weeks, why all the dooming and glooming?

No it has not made its budget back at the B.O. Its made $65 million so far worldwide. The studio only gets about 55% of the B.O. So at this point the studio has only recouped $35.75 Mill of its $54 production cost (.55*$65).

Also Ice Age 2, Slither, ATL and Basic Instinct 2 are coming out next week so it could drop to sixth.

I am certain Ice Age 2 will be one, Slither will probably be 2 and it targets the same audience V does. ATL may have a strong opening as well. Basic Instinct 2 will probably bomb and V should beat it but you never know.

TheVileOne

03-29-2006, 05:26 PM

I doubt V will drop to 6th. Slither...I'm not sure, it could either play really well or not so well. But horror movies tend have a decent opening weekend.

I think Basic Instinct 2 is going to be a Showgirls like bomb, but with less sex and nudity.

Antonello Blueberry

03-29-2006, 05:38 PM

I think Basic Instinct 2 is going to be a Showgirls like bomb, but with less sex and nudity.
You can be sure of that. It's the worst movie in ages (excluding a couple I worked on).

Nivek

03-29-2006, 08:48 PM

No it has not made its budget back at the B.O. Its made $65 million so far worldwide. The studio only gets about 55% of the B.O. So at this point the studio has only recouped $35.75 Mill of its $54 production cost (.55*$65).

Once again, let me just point out it very well should be earning it's budget back now. Permitting a good turn out this weekend, it is on it's way to being a success for Warner Brothers. It's not a franchise, so Im just rooting for the movie because of it's quality. I think it is a rare exception where people like watching the story again and again.

Also Ice Age 2, Slither, ATL and Basic Instinct 2 are coming out next week so it could drop to sixth.

I am certain Ice Age 2 will be one, Slither will probably be 2 and it targets the same audience V does. ATL may have a strong opening as well. Basic Instinct 2 will probably bomb and V should beat it but you never know.

I agree about Ice Age being #1, but the first one was kinda so-so at the Box office, so it's a matter of it being good enough to have a strong showing. and Hoodwinked showed that just because something is kid oriented doesn't equel success. Basic Instinct 2? If that makes any box office, thats a sign of the apocalypse.

TheVileOne

03-29-2006, 09:57 PM

Once again, let me just point out it very well should be earning it's budget back now. Permitting a good turn out this weekend, it is on it's way to being a success for Warner Brothers. It's not a franchise, so Im just rooting for the movie because of it's quality. I think it is a rare exception where people like watching the story again and again.

I just want to know where all the people voting $100 million and tons more went.

I agree about Ice Age being #1, but the first one was kinda so-so at the Box office, so it's a matter of it being good enough to have a strong showing. and Hoodwinked showed that just because something is kid oriented doesn't equel success. Basic Instinct 2? If that makes any box office, thats a sign of the apocalypse.

The first Ice Age movie made $176 million in the US, and $382 million worldwide. With a production budget a little bigger than V For Vendetta's. Still want to say it was SO-SO?

Nivek

03-29-2006, 10:19 PM

The first Ice Age movie made $176 million in the US, and $382 million worldwide. With a production budget a little bigger than V For Vendetta's. Still want to say it was SO-SO?

Actually, given the general opinion, it wasn't well loved, it's not like it was something to the quality of a typical Pixar flick. Peoples general opinion of the sequel is pretty much "Meh...", no one really seems that excited to see it. It'll be #1, but only because it's a "this should keep the damn kids quiet for 2 hours on saturday" flick.

GL's Light

03-29-2006, 10:21 PM

This is exactly what I said, notice the bolded out? Should. Not is. It's not like it made $25 million and dropped off, either. It's too soon to see if it has legs to stand for 4 weeks in the top ten, but hey, it was number 2. Not number 7.

But again I feel the need to point out that it's only it's 2nd week of release here. This is March box office, not June, so I knew it wasn't going to do a $100 million weekend. And why the negativity, you people want it to fail? Do you think WB didn't do enough? Seriously, it's 2nd week of release, it's still number 2, it's already made it's budget back in B.O.,nothing worth while is coming out for a couple weeks, why all the dooming and glooming?
If you want to convey that you think V4V will turn a profit after ancillary revenues then that's what you should say, and you should say it consistently and clearly.

Within this very post you've gone on to say that "it's already made it's budget back in B.O." Well, no it hasn't. That's a contradictory statement to your reply that you actually meant that it would only be profitable after DVD.

TheVileOne

03-29-2006, 10:32 PM

Actually, given the general opinion, it wasn't well loved, it's not like it was something to the quality of a typical Pixar flick. Peoples general opinion of the sequel is pretty much "Meh...", no one really seems that excited to see it. It'll be #1, but only because it's a "this should keep the damn kids quiet for 2 hours on saturday" flick.

Good job dodging the question :up: ;) .

Nivek

03-29-2006, 11:17 PM

Good job dodging the question :up: ;) .

Yes, it's definatly so so.

Nivek

03-29-2006, 11:24 PM

If you want to convey that you think V4V will turn a profit after ancillary revenues then that's what you should say, and you should say it consistently and clearly.

Within this very post you've gone on to say that "it's already made it's budget back in B.O." Well, no it hasn't. That's a contradictory statement to your reply that you actually meant that it would only be profitable after DVD.

Yes, and it has earned as much cash as it cost to make it. Does the studio have their money back? Not yet, and I doubt they are sweating it out. Unless some messed up circumstance leads to it not earning any further money at this point, it will be a success and pretty much gain profit for WB. It past that point where it would take a while to earn half it's budget back, were past that point now.

I dont understand why this is so hard to understand? Do you not want this film to succeed?

TheVileOne

03-29-2006, 11:30 PM

Yes, it's definatly so so.

Yes the box office is very so so, even though it has roughly the same budget as V for Vendetta's, and will make probably triple the amounts of money that V For Vendetta will.

So very interesting.

Nivek

03-29-2006, 11:39 PM

Yes the box office is very so so, even though it has roughly the same budget as V for Vendetta's, and will make probably triple the amounts of money that V For Vendetta will.

So very interesting.

Eh, you can never tell. I figured Kong would do better than Narnia because it was the better movie, no one seen that coming.

Kids are a fickle crowd too, and schools are still in, lots of factors, but its the only game in town if parents need some relief from their rugrats, so it just a margin of how much buisness its gonna take in.

Cinemaman

03-30-2006, 01:43 AM

As I said it will make good $86m. domesticly, $57m in overseas and $143m in worldwide.

TheVileOne

03-30-2006, 04:37 PM

As I said it will make good $86m. domesticly, $57m in overseas and $143m in worldwide.
I remember you saying in the US BO forecast thread it would make "$193 million".

Antonello Blueberry

03-30-2006, 04:47 PM

I remember you saying in the US BO forecast thread it would make "$193 million".
His crystal ball is out of warranty.

superion

03-31-2006, 11:35 AM

I doubt it will even get to $86 million domestically. $75 Mil tops.

Slither which came out today is getting excellent reviews as well. It has a higher rating on Rotten Tomatoes then V has. This film could sink V's domestic box office. I expect another 50% drop maybe even 60% this week.

TheVileOne

03-31-2006, 02:48 PM

I think that's an accurate prediction because the buzz for V is NOT there.

TheVileOne

04-01-2006, 11:25 AM

http://www.showbizdata.com/

$2.0 estimate for Friday, another big drop-off for this one this weekend.

Basic Instinct 2 is boming big time as anyone with a pulse should've predicted.

GL's Light

04-01-2006, 11:33 AM

V4V should drop by around 50% again based on its Friday estimate.

Basic Instinct 2 and Slither are both on the way to flop land.

Ice Age 2 should make around $ 70 million this weekend - by far the biggest March/April opening ever.

I SEE SPIDEY

04-01-2006, 11:47 AM

There is no way in hell that V is getting 86mil, hell it's going to stuggle to 70mil.

TheVileOne

04-01-2006, 11:49 AM

Not bad for a movie that had "so-so" BO in 2002. I think some people forgot how surprisingly successful Ice Age was.

I'm somewhat sad about Slither, but horror comedies tend not to do as well at the BO as straight-up horror.

TheVileOne

04-01-2006, 11:50 AM

There is no way in hell that V is getting 86mil, hell it's going to stuggle to 70mil.

Yeah, once again, the buzz and word of mouth for the movie is not there. It didn't really rise above any other comic book releases.

Darthphere

04-01-2006, 11:51 AM

I SEE SPIDEY

04-01-2006, 12:28 PM

Yeah, once again, the buzz and word of mouth for the movie is not there. It didn't really rise above any other comic book releases.Exactly. What bothers me the most though is why did any of us think that it would? I mean even I thought that it would open in the low 30's and end in the low 80's, but It's didn't and it's not gonna going to gross 80mil (most likely). Most professional predictors thought that it would open in the high 30's and end with over a 100mil. But it's just another Constantine, SinCity, Hellboy and LXG. Like SinCity and Hellboy, the reviews were good, but the boxoffice isn't (wasn't) anything to write home about. I think that it's time the critics professional and other predictors face the facts. Movies like this will be lucky to hit 80mil, 100mil is off the table. Oh there will be another Matrix, we just won't see it coming.

BTW the international numbers are also very disappointing. The Pink Panther beat it out in the U.K. Now thats what I call disappointing!

TheVileOne

04-01-2006, 01:01 PM

Darthphere

04-01-2006, 01:04 PM

V For Vendetta is simply following the BO trend of most comic book movies.

Decent or strong opening weekend, huge weekend drop-offs. Little in the way of buzz or word of mouth.

The only exceptions to this so far (in recent years) have been the Spider-man films.

Now I will say, considering the highly political content of this movie, I'm rather surprised. I was expecting a lot more controversy and media discussion about this movie, when there really hasn't been.

For the moviegoing public, I think some of them just couldn't get past V and his mask and couldn't buy into it.

Yeah, its a niche market, everyone that wanted to see it saw it opening weekend. I asked a friend of mine yet if she saw V and she said she never heard of it. This was yesterday.

ThreeOfAKind

04-01-2006, 02:04 PM

V For Vendetta is simply following the BO trend of most comic book movies.

Decent or strong opening weekend, huge weekend drop-offs. Little in the way of buzz or word of mouth.

The only exceptions to this so far (in recent years) have been the Spider-man films.

And Batman Begins. Which had a weak opening weekend, and some of the best legs ever.

V for Vendetta has to be considered a disappointment, as far as its box office. As a movie it's really getting a great reaction, and I personally love it.

It's strange that the best reviewed movies this year (and generally most loved according to the ranking sites) such as Dave Chappelle's Block Party, Slither, and V for Vendetta - are the ones that are flopping. The only exception has been Inside Man.

V for Vendetta will probably make a profit on DVD where it should bring in some very strong numbers, however the BO intake is very weak. It will have to settle for cult movie status, and a place on a few peoples top 10 lists.

TheVileOne

04-01-2006, 02:17 PM

And Batman Begins. Which had a weak opening weekend, and some of the best legs ever.

Batman Begins doesn't apply to my argument since it had a disappointing, weak opening. And it had low weekend drop-offs, great buzz, great word of mouth.

V for Vendetta has to be considered a disappointment, as far as its box office. As a movie it's really getting a great reaction, and I personally love it.

It's strange that the best reviewed movies this year (and generally most loved according to the ranking sites) such as Dave Chappelle's Block Party, Slither, and V for Vendetta - are the ones that are flopping. The only exception has been Inside Man.

V for Vendetta will probably make a profit on DVD where it should bring in some very strong numbers, however the BO intake is very weak. It will have to settle for cult movie status, and a place on a few peoples top 10 lists.

I won't really call the movie a flop. I will say that most everyone on the forums overestimated its BO potential as they do most comic book movies.

Darthphere

04-01-2006, 02:20 PM

Personally I thought it was going to flop.:(

superion

04-01-2006, 07:15 PM

V's 45% drop is better then I expected. I was shocked Slither flopped so badly. It's in the same horror genre as Staying Alive which opened last weekend in third place despite being so lousy the studio didn't let critics review it before its release while Slither got generally good reviews. I guess the teenage target audience for these movies really don't read reviews.

TheVileOne

04-02-2006, 12:48 PM

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/

Drop-off for the second weekend wasn't as high this time, iestimated at under 50%. I wouldn't call it impressive though.

And wow, look at that so-so box office for Ice Age 2 ;) .

Darthphere

04-02-2006, 12:49 PM

Damn kids and their movies.:mad:

SsM

04-02-2006, 03:29 PM

I loved it, everyone I know loved it as well its a shame its not getting the recognition it really deserves.

Nivek

04-02-2006, 03:52 PM

Very, very, very dissapointed. Not entirely unexspected, but hey, nothing did all that great in relation to anything thats not a brat flick. I still cant believe that movie did that well. The power of the rugrats compells box office. :mad:

The people I knew who said they were waiting to see it said they are "gonna wait for it to come out in video" now. So, all the negative nancys can gloat away about it not being a "huge hit" and all that jazz. Maybe in their opinon WB should have made V more kid friendly? Less Moore, more Comedy? Maybe a talking rabbit as a sidekick?

Eh, i'll own it on DVD regardless, and it will be yet another "Fight Club" type movie that every whines about "I should've seen it in the theatre, it was awesome.

SsM

04-02-2006, 04:06 PM

yeah.. like they made batman more youth friendly with batman and robin.... V with bat roller skates to the rescue!

Nivek

04-02-2006, 04:33 PM

Well, with everyone throwing around the loaded word "Bomb" left and right, people forget Batman and Robin did pretty well at the Box Office till fan word of mouth and critical reviews chased it out of the Box office. As anger-indusing that film was, it still pulled in $238 million worldwide. So dumbing down that character still brought in a profit.

SsM

04-02-2006, 05:53 PM

Rob_Merritt

04-02-2006, 07:28 PM

I think its performing slightly under WB's expectations. It opened slightly soft domesticly but internationally The Pink Panther stole several markets they figured V would perform well in. However the movie was cheap to make, it will make a healthy profit.

Darthphere

04-02-2006, 07:30 PM

Damn shame too pardon my language it took over ten years to get another good batman movie after batman returns

Thats assuming Batman Returns was actually good.

GL's Light

04-03-2006, 04:37 PM

The weekend actuals are out:

V for Vendetta placed 5th with $ 6,295,358 (a 49% drop) for a total, so far, of $ 56,659,439.

Antonello Blueberry

04-04-2006, 03:34 AM

The worldwide BO according to BoxOfficeMojo is now $81,659,439.
And the movie still has to open in big markets like France and Japan,

Polomontana

04-04-2006, 08:38 AM

V has legs!!! It's doing well worldwide. Why do you think they are doing another Garfield movie and it takes place overseas? Garfield made $75,369,589 in the United States and $123,232,506 in the foreign markets for a total of $198 million worldwide. I see a V prequal in the future!!

Antonello Blueberry

04-04-2006, 09:44 AM

I see a V prequal in the future!!
No, really.

superion

04-06-2006, 02:51 PM

They updated the overseas BO of V at BO Mojo and it seems to have barely moved. Its at $25 mill overseas. Wasn't it over $23 mill last week. Looks like the overseas numbers are going to be less then the US by quite a bit which is surprising as LOEG the last adaptation of a Moore comic made almost twice as much overseas.

I SEE SPIDEY

04-08-2006, 04:23 PM

1.0mil for friday. www.boxofficemojo.com.

This thing isn't springing any legs. Thats a 50% friday to friday drop off.

superion

04-09-2006, 12:19 PM

Unless its overseas results really picks up this will be a money loser at the BO.

Antonello Blueberry

04-09-2006, 01:33 PM

The estimated total for the week-end is $3,365,000 for a total gross in the USA of $62,257,000. It just surpassed the national final gross of Hellboy.

I SEE SPIDEY

04-09-2006, 01:45 PM

The estimated total for the week-end is $3,365,000 for a total gross in the USA of $62,257,000. It just surpassed the national final gross of Hellboy.Yay! Maybe it can catch Titanic!:rolleyes:

superion

04-09-2006, 04:14 PM

The estimated total for the week-end is $3,365,000 for a total gross in the USA of $62,257,000. It just surpassed the national final gross of Hellboy.

Why use Hellboy as a benchmark for anything? Hellboy cost $96 million dollars ($66 production and $30 marketing) and only made a little over $99 million worldwide. The studio loss tens of millions of dollars on Hellboy. Why they are discussing a sequel is beyond me?

Hellboy was also released 3 years ago so inflation has to be included in the calculation. The max amount V will make domestically is $75 million. Assuming it gets that it will need at least another $70 million overseas just to breakeven. But like Hellboy its overseas BO is lagging behind the domestic by quite a bit. V looks like another money loser just not as bad as Hellboy.

TheVileOne

04-09-2006, 08:11 PM

Hellboy was released 2 years ago, in 2004, not 3 years ago in 2003.

Antonello Blueberry

04-09-2006, 08:14 PM

Why use Hellboy as a benchmark for anything? Hellboy cost $96 million dollars ($66 production and $30 marketing) and only made a little over $99 million worldwide. The studio loss tens of millions of dollars on Hellboy. Why they are discussing a sequel is beyond me?

Hellboy was also released 3 years ago so inflation has to be included in the calculation. The max amount V will make domestically is $75 million. Assuming it gets that it will need at least another $70 million overseas just to breakeven. But like Hellboy its overseas BO is lagging behind the domestic by quite a bit. V looks like another money loser just not as bad as Hellboy.
You are a bit shortsighted. As it was stated more than twice in these boards, the theatrical Box office is a mere fraction of the total income of a movie. You have to add worldwide TV and DVD sales. Hellboy was a good seller on DVD, why do you think they are developing a sequel?

TheVileOne

04-09-2006, 08:41 PM

Well I don't think the Hellboy sequel is going to happen, but that's just me.

superion

04-10-2006, 10:45 AM

I doubt the theatrical BO is just a fraction of the income. It probably still accounts for at least half of a movies income. Income from TV rights are negligible. The only other big revenue stream are DVD sales.

It makes more sense to me if the studios made most of their profits from other revenue sources while income from the theatrical BO was used to cover the production and marketing cost of a film. But if a film is a money loser at the BO the other revenue streams are still being used to cover the studio's expenses and any profit the studio will see is minimal.

I have yet to see a sequel made of any comic movie that did not at least show a slight profit or cover its production and marketing expenses at the BO.

Hulk, Daredevil and Constantine were not bombs at the BO but they still lost money and whatever they did on DVD it was not enough for the studio to go ahead with sequels.

Hellboy and the Punisher are the only two comic films that supposedly made enough money on DVD and elsewhere to offset its BO failures. However it doesn't seem like anyone is in much of a hurry to make either one.

Hellboy only covered half its expenses at the BO. That left it at least $45 in the red. It would have had to sell a lot of DVD's (at $15 a DVD it would have to sell over 3 million) to cover the remaining expenses and turn any kind of decent profit.

The Punisher is in the same boat it only covered half its $53 million expenses at the BO but since it had a smaller budget it only had to cover an additional $25 million in expenses. It may have turned a small profit with DVD sales.

Darth Elektra

04-10-2006, 04:06 PM

This film deserved to break the 100million mark.

Darth Elektra

04-10-2006, 05:30 PM

Argentina 6 April 2006
Brazil 7 April 2006
Poland 7 April 2006
Spain 7 April 2006
France 19 April 2006
Switzerland 19 April 2006 (French speaking region)
Hungary 20 April 2006
Slovenia 20 April 2006
Bulgaria 21 April 2006
Egypt 26 April 2006
Estonia 28 April 2006
Lithuania 28 April 2006
Japan 29 April 2006

Antonello Blueberry

04-11-2006, 06:31 AM

I doubt the theatrical BO is just a fraction of the income. It probably still accounts for at least half of a movies income. Income from TV rights are negligible. The only other big revenue stream are DVD sales.

http://www.factbook.net/SD/images/badgraph.gif
And this graphic shows the situation back in 2000. Now with many more pay TVs worldwide and a larger use of DVDs, the slice for the box office is close to 18%.
http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/table2.htm

superion

04-11-2006, 11:57 AM

Interesting link. However the article indicates the numbers represent other product aside from movies (TV series) though pay per view revenue is higher then expected.

[PHP]The Hollywood Economist

The numbers behind the industry.

The real El Dorado is TV.

Multiple-Choice Quiz
1. Is Hollywood's biggest money-maker:
a) Movies?
b) DVDs?
c) Television?

The best-kept secret in Hollywood, especially from Wall Street, is that the movie studios' biggest profit center is not theatrical movies, or even DVD sales; it is TV licensing. If the details of the profits remain clouded to outsiders, it is no accident. The studios purposely blur together their three principal revenue sources—the box office, video sales, and television licensing—into a single portmanteau category called "studio entertainment" in their quarterly and annual reports. Keeping audiences in the dark may be a time-honored Hollywood tradition, but this breakdown can be demystified by consulting the studios' internal numbers, which they furnish to the Motion Picture Association on a confidential basis.

Last year, the six major studios—Disney, Fox, Warner Bros., Paramount, Universal, Sony, and their subsidiaries—had total revenues of $7.4 billion from world box-office sales, $20.9 billion from world video sales, and $17.7 billion from world television licensing. Revenues, however, are what companies record, not what they earn. And, in the case of Hollywood, the revenues from movies, DVDs, and TV yield very different earnings.

Once upon a time—before the TV and VCR—studios earned virtually all their profits from a single source: the theater's box office. Nowadays, in the new Hollywood, the world box office is a money loser: In 2004, the studios lost an estimated $2.22 billion on the $7.4 billion they took in from the box office. (Click here to see Table 1.) This sad reality is not a result of the high cost of making movies, inefficiencies, or of any sort of studio accounting legerdemain. The simple fact is that the studios pay more to alert potential audiences via advertising and to get movie prints into theaters than they get back from those who buy tickets. Consider, for example, Warner Bros.' movie The Negotiator, with Samuel L. Jackson and Kevin Spacey. It was efficiently produced for $43.5 million, scored a world box office of $88 million, and appeared to be a modest success. In fact, Warner Bros. collected only $36.74 million from its theatrical release after it had paid check-conversion and other collection costs, the theaters had taken their cut, and the MPA had deducted its fee. Meanwhile, to corral that audience, Warner Bros.' advertising bill was $40.28 million, and its bill for prints, trailers, dubbing, customs, and shipping was another $12.32 million. So, after the movie finished its theater run, without even considering the cost of making the movie, Warner Bros. had lost $13 million. Why? For every dollar Warner Bros. got back from the box office, it shelled out about $1.40 in expenses, which was about average, if not slightly above par, for studio movies.

This might seem equivalent to the joke about a manufacturer who says, "We lose on every item but make it up on volume," except that Hollywood has another way of making up the loss—the so-called back end, which includes home video (now mainly DVD) and TV licensing.

Home video is both more complex and more profitable. With the advent of the DVD, home video has become a vast retail business, with studios selling both new and past titles, as well as television programming such as The Sopranos, Friends, or Chappelle's Show, at wholesale prices that can go as low as $5 a DVD. Studios, which have meticulously analyzed these costs, estimate that manufacturing, shipping, and returns costs average 12.4 percent; marketing, advertising, and returns costs average 18.5 percent; and residuals paid to guilds and unions for their members and pension plans come to 2.65 percent. So, about two-thirds of video revenues are gross profits (which participants, such as stars, producers, and directors, may share in once the movie breaks even). In 2004, the studios' estimated video gross profit was $13.95 billion.

But the studios' real El Dorado is television. What makes television licensing, both at home and abroad, especially profitable for the studios is that virtually all the expenses required to market a television program, including tapes and advertising, are borne by the licensee. The studios only have to pay the residuals to the guilds and unions, which varies between movies and TV and average roughly 10 percent. The studios get to keep the other 90 percent. In 2004, this amounted to slightly more than $15.9 billion, making it the studios' single-richest source of profits.

This El Dorado comes from many tiers of the television industry. (Click here to see Table 2.) In 2004, studios made $3.9 billion from licensing their films, shorts, and TV series to the American broadcast networks—all of which are now owned by the corporate parents of the studios, creating a cozy, not to say incestuous, relationship. Another $4 billion came from licensing studio films to pay-per-view TV. All the studios have an "output" arrangement with pay-per-view TV channels to sell them an entire slate of films at fixed prices. Warner Bros., for example, sells all its films to its corporate sibling HBO, and Paramount sells all its films to its corporate sibling Showtime. Overseas, almost all the main pay-per-view TV outlets are owned or controlled by the studios' corporate parents. Finally, $9.8 billion comes from so-called library sales, through which the studios license their movies and TV programs over and over again to cable networks, local stations, and foreign broadcasters. Fifty-nine percent of this immense $17.7 billion of revenue from television licensing comes from America, which is not surprising, considering that on an average day fewer than 2 percent of Americans go to movie theaters, while more than 90 percent watch something at home on TV. And without these profits from TV, no Hollywood studio could survive.

Even though the television profit center is often overshadowed by the public's fascination with box-office results, it accounts for the direction Hollywood is taking in three significant ways. First, it explains the relentless marriages between the principal outlets for profitable entertainment—TV networks—and the Hollywood studios, which have been television's primary content-providers since 1970.

In 1970, the FCC passed the Financial-Syndication rule, which effectively took the television networks out of the business of producing their own television series. This rule prohibited television networks, but not movie studios, from having a financial interest in television programs broadcast by networks and then sold in syndication to local stations. By effectively removing the three networks from the syndication business, the FCC radically changed the economic landscape of television. Since it was not profitable to produce television series for their original run without owning the rights to sell them in syndication, the networks simply withdrew from television production. The movie studios were then able to dominate the business of making and owning television programs, which they then licensed to the networks for their original runs and afterwards sold in syndication to local stations as well as foreign stations. When the FCC lifted its Fin-Syn rule in 1995, the studios' corporate parents moved in to take control of major networks.

After Rupert Murdoch was unable to buy a network and boldly created his own Fox network, Michael Eisner bought both ABC and ESPN for Disney in 1995—a coup that changed not only Disney but the landscape of the entire entertainment economy. The other entertainment giants quickly followed suit. Today, the studios' corporate parents own or control all six over-the-air networks, as well as 64 cable networks, accounting for almost all the prime-time television audience. (Viacom, even after it is divided into two separate units, will be controlled by a single corporate parent—Sumner Redstone's National Amusement Inc.)

Second, it explains why so many of Hollywood's new leaders hail from TV. Robert Iger, Eisner's replacement as CEO at Disney, was president of ABC television; Sir Howard Stringer, the first non-Japanese chairman of Sony, was president of CBS television; Jeff Bewkes, the head of Time Warner's new Entertainment & Networks Group (which includes Warner Bros. and New Line), was president of HBO; Tom Freston, the new co-president of Viacom, was president of MTV; Peter Chernin, the president of the Fox Entertainment Group, was head of Fox Broadcasting; and Brad Grey, the new head of Paramount, was a television producer. Their ascensions simply confirmed that what used to be a business centered in movie houses has been transformed into a business centered around the TV in the home.

Finally, it explains why so-called studioless studios find it difficult to survive in Hollywood. The big six studios, with vast libraries of movies and TV programs, can count on this income flow no matter what happens at the box office or video stores. For example, even though Sony has a batch of movies this summer, its profitability is assured by the licensing fees flowing in from its library of more than 40,000 hours of movies and TV episodes. No such luck for the independent studios. With no comparable libraries, or, for that matter, corporate sibling alliances to ease their access, they need a constant quota of hits to keep their heads above water. Consider Dreamworks SKG, run by three of the most successful and creative executives in Hollywood's history—Steven Spielberg, Jeffrey Katzenberg, and David Geffen. Even though it still is in the black, Dreamworks was not able to produce anywhere near enough hits to prevent it from burning through a large part of of its capital, and is currently trying to sell itself to NBC Universal. The problem for these wannabe studios is that without a juicy slice of the $17.7 billion television pie, they cannot compete with the studios that have this rich cushion to fall back on.

The union between Hollywood and TV has paid off handsomely. The 2004 MPA Consolidated Sales Report—another confidential document—shows that the six studios' revenues from television licensing went from $6.8 billion in 1994 to $17.7 billion in 2004—a nearly $11 billion increase. And this does not include the fortunes that studios now earn from selling TV series on DVD. Unfortunately, Hollywood's movies are coming to play an ever-smaller part in the big picture.[PHP]

Darth Elektra

04-11-2006, 01:05 PM

wow,cool info guys thanks for sharing.

hammerhedd11

04-11-2006, 04:53 PM

I doubt the theatrical BO is just a fraction of the income.

.

Have you heard of Transporter? It only made 25 mil. out of its 41mil in costs, but it did really well in DVDS and they made a sequel.

superion

04-11-2006, 08:16 PM

Have you heard of Transporter? It only made 25 mil. out of its 41mil in costs, but it did really well in DVDS and they made a sequel.

The Transporter made about $41 million worldwide. But this is one of the few movies where the DVD income managed to turn a money loser into a profitable movie. However the cost involved for the Transporter was fairly low. Something like Hellboy or V cost twice as much or more so its far more doubtful those movies can recoup there losses with DVD sales.

That's why I would expect a Punisher sequel before Hellboy simply because of the cost involved. A Punisher sequel may even cost less yhen the original once you remove Travolta's salary from the equation.

I SEE SPIDEY

04-12-2006, 09:48 AM

Why use Hellboy as a benchmark for anything? Hellboy cost $96 million dollars ($66 production and $30 marketing) and only made a little over $99 million worldwide. The studio loss tens of millions of dollars on Hellboy. Why they are discussing a sequel is beyond me?

Hellboy was also released 3 years ago so inflation has to be included in the calculation. The max amount V will make domestically is $75 million. Assuming it gets that it will need at least another $70 million overseas just to breakeven. But like Hellboy its overseas BO is lagging behind the domestic by quite a bit. V looks like another money loser just not as bad as Hellboy.Hellboy didn't cost 96million to make and whocares if it was a huge failure. There is going to be a sequel and I'm very happy about that. Hell the Hulk and Daredevil sequels are all but dead in the water.

Antonello Blueberry

04-12-2006, 10:34 AM

Something like Hellboy or V cost twice as much or more so its far more doubtful those movies can recoup there losses with DVD sales.

As you can see from the articles, you are wrong. Today you can count on the fingers of one hand the real failures for studio movies. That's beacause worldwide marketing campaing raise the global awareness on the product, so that even if it doesn't make that much money in theatres, it will make them on TV and DVD sale and rentals.

ultimatefan

04-14-2006, 07:35 AM

At the end of the day, V is gonna make a lot of profit for WB from all these sources. Considering BO alone, it fits into what the industry calls "modest success", even if it doesn´t cover up all its costs, because it will have made enough to assume it will have a decent performance in the DVD and TV markets where the real profit is. If Alan Moore had made a V sequel, they´d be considering it by now.

superion

04-14-2006, 10:59 AM

Daredevil, Hulk, LOEG, Constantine and even Blade III made a larger percentage of its budget back at the BO then V probably will. There were no sequels to any of them.

As I said previously the numbers from the articles are inclusive of other product such as television series so you don't know how much of that DVD and television revenue is generated by movies and how much is generated by TV series like Friends and the Sopranos. Even with the movies there will be a few like the LOTR and Harry Potter films which will generate the majority of the income as they did at the BO.

The idea that every movie eventually becomes profitable is one I find hard to believe. The numbers for the Negotiator indicates the studio only kept $36.74 out of its worldwide BO of $88 million thats worse then the 55% used by BO Mojo. The film had a budget of $43.5 Million and incurred another $52.6 million in advertising and miscellaneous cost. That means the studiio needed to make some $59.6 million in DVD and television fees just to break even. Even if the movie does make that money how long would it have to be out on DVD and TV to do so. I doubt a studio would be happy spending nearly $100 million in a film in 2004 to get back $110 in 3 to 5 years from the various sources of income.

The only real way to test the idea that a movie like Constantine, Hellboy or the Hulk (the people on the Hulk boards insist this movie was extremely profitable even though at minimum it lost at least $27 million at the BO probably more based on the Negotiators numbers and the studio wanted no part of a sequel) became profitble is to get a breakdown of its revenue from DVD and TV licensing but that information does not appear to be widely available on an indivdual film basis.

ZER0C00L

04-15-2006, 02:51 AM

Budget 54,000,000
Domestic: $63,821,000 + Foreign: $31,700,000 = Worldwide: $95,521,000
V made its budget back, and then some.

I SEE SPIDEY

04-15-2006, 10:48 AM

Budget 54,000,000
Domestic: $63,821,000 + Foreign: $31,700,000 = Worldwide: $95,521,000
V made its budget back, and then some.But it's still a disappointment...

Darth Elektra

04-15-2006, 02:09 PM

Its disappointing but atleast there not going to lose anything on it. They should get some money off dvd sales.

superion

04-15-2006, 02:27 PM

Out of that $95 million so far deduct half for the theaters and add another $25 to $30 million at least for advertising expenses.

JackMercy

04-15-2006, 03:57 PM

Out of that $95 million so far deduct half for the theaters and add another $25 to $30 million at least for advertising expenses.

You seem to have a personal "vendetta" against "V".

Why are you so determined to prove it is a failure?

I can tell you that the makers and the studio see it quite the opposite way.

It's not always of the #1 importance that a movie profits exponentially. Yes, millions are invested -- but don't you think that possibly, maybe the studio and the filmmakers might also be happy that they received reasonably positive reviews, often with praise (at least in terms of being an unusually smart "genre" pic), and that the film generated as much talk/discussion as it did?

Btw, your argument about Hellboy is a tricky one -- studio profit margins do not always incorporate marketing costs into overall budget and final tallies. In fact, until recent years, actual budgets themselves were almost never publicly acknowledged at all.

It only sets the studios up for over-eager criticism, which is exactly what's happening here.

[Excuse me, I know this is the "Box Office Tracking Thread" but I thought something needed to be said.]
:cool:

ZER0C00L

04-15-2006, 06:03 PM

Mr. Socko

04-15-2006, 06:33 PM

V has done decent.

Batman Begins was very disappointing in the BO says WB. They were expecting alot more.

Darth Elektra

04-15-2006, 06:35 PM

05,was a bad year except for Narnia,Potter and Starwars.

TheVileOne

04-15-2006, 07:42 PM

It figures since so much of what Hollywood puts out is absolute crap and garbage.

LastSunrise1981

04-15-2006, 08:19 PM

V is underrated people don't know what there missing.
I don't see it as a disapointment.

BATMAN BEGINS

Domestic Total Gross: $205,343,774 Production Budget: $150 million

that's pretty disapointing knowing how huge the buget was for that movie and the huge ad campange they had for it (most expensive ad campaign ever?). It made it up in DVD's and overseas sales.

WB really didn't advertise it a lot due to Batman and Robin obviously. But it did pretty good even with the lack of promotion.

To an extent I blame that figure on the people though. They couldn't accept that it was a new beginning for Batman, so they just didn't see it and thought it would be like Batman and Robin.

TheVileOne

04-15-2006, 08:23 PM

WB really didn't advertise it a lot due to Batman and Robin obviously. But it did pretty good even with the lack of promotion.

Wrong wrong wrong. They advertised it tons and even used some of the same techniques as Sony did with Spider-man 2.

It's simply that they underestimated the stink of Batman and Robin and how uphill it was for the movie to overcome it. Not just that but CINO as well.

To an extent I blame that figure on the people though. They couldn't accept that it was a new beginning for Batman, so they just didn't see it and thought it would be like Batman and Robin.

I can hardly blame people for not trusting Hollywood after crap like Batman and Robin. And releasing the movie LESS THAN A YEAR after Catwoman.

LastSunrise1981

04-15-2006, 09:11 PM

Wrong wrong wrong. They advertised it tons and even used some of the same techniques as Sony did with Spider-man 2.

It's simply that they underestimated the stink of Batman and Robin and how uphill it was for the movie to overcome it. Not just that but CINO as well.

I can hardly blame people for not trusting Hollywood after crap like Batman and Robin. And releasing the movie LESS THAN A YEAR after Catwoman.

I agree that they advertised it. But they didn't advertise it like ROTS, CINO, or even Spider-Man 2 for instance. Granted there was a ten minute preview and a few tv spots here and there. WB pretty much counted on the ability of word of mouth in hopes it would generate interest.

But they really didn't advertise it as strongly as the other movies.

I blame people for not being able to set aside Batman and Robin and CINO. They could've seen it was a totally different movie, more faithful to the material, and actually had a great director with a great case.

CINO was crap even with the previews. :)

TheVileOne

04-15-2006, 09:22 PM

I agree that they advertised it. But they didn't advertise it like ROTS, CINO, or even Spider-Man 2 for instance. Granted there was a ten minute preview and a few tv spots here and there. WB pretty much counted on the ability of word of mouth in hopes it would generate interest.

Wrong. They released a teaser trailer a year ahead of time. And trailers were showing in theatres as early as Nov./December.

CINO didn't have anything like that.

Not to mention the numerous merchandising and ancillary markets, that CINO didn't have.

And what you fail to realize, what made the movie successful WAS word of mouth. That's where it made tons of money.

But they really didn't advertise it as strongly as the other movies.

Yes they did. It came out in a crowded summer movie season, and people were still in disbelief after Batman and Robin and CINO.

I blame people for not being able to set aside Batman and Robin and CINO. They could've seen it was a totally different movie, more faithful to the material, and actually had a great director with a great case.

To us of course it did. But not for the general moviegoing public. Plus its a very dark, serious, and scary movie. Some parents are going to be discouraged to taking their kids to see it. It's not as quite a broad a family film like Spider-man 2 or The Incredibles.

CINO was crap even with the previews. :)

Yes and WB made it. And released Batman Begins less than a year after they had the unmitigated gall to peddle that crap and further drag the reputation of the Batman franchise in the mud. Of course people will still be skeptical.

LastSunrise1981

04-15-2006, 09:28 PM

Wrong. They released a teaser trailer a year ahead of time. And trailers were showing in theatres as early as Nov./December.

CINO didn't have anything like that.

Not to mention the numerous merchandising and ancillary markets, that CINO didn't have.

And what you fail to realize, what made the movie successful WAS word of mouth. That's where it made tons of money.

Yes they did. It came out in a crowded summer movie season, and people were still in disbelief after Batman and Robin and CINO.

To us of course it did. But not for the general moviegoing public. Plus its a very dark, serious, and scary movie. Some parents are going to be discouraged to taking their kids to see it. It's not as quite a broad a family film like Spider-man 2 or The Incredibles.

Yes and WB made it. And released Batman Begins less than a year after they had the unmitigated gall to peddle that crap and further drag the reputation of the Batman franchise in the mud. Of course people will still be skeptical.

I know trailers of BB was in theatres. But I meant as in tv spots for the film, as they really didn't materialize until after the movie was released.

You have a good point about the source material of BB. I definitely say screw the kids and continue with the darkness of it. :up:

But seriously Vile, people couldn't see the difference between BB and Batman and Robin? Or CINO for instance? I mean BB had Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, Liam Neeson, Gary Oldman, Ken Watanabe(spelling?), and Katie Holmes. Two of those actors are Oscar winners, Liam Neeson and Ken Watanabe are Oscar Nominated, and Katie Holmes was and is a very well known TV actress with Dawson's Creek.

They couldn't see the better product, better director, and actors? I also feel that TomKat debacle didn't help BB either.

TheVileOne

04-15-2006, 09:40 PM

I know trailers of BB was in theatres. But I meant as in tv spots for the film, as they really didn't materialize until after the movie was released.

I saw plenty of TV spots.

You have a good point about the source material of BB. I definitely say screw the kids and continue with the darkness of it. :up:

Eh whatever, I saw plenty of kids the multiple times I saw it. I'm just saying, it doesn't play as broad as a Spider-man film.

But seriously Vile, people couldn't see the difference between BB and Batman and Robin? Or CINO for instance? I mean BB had Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, Liam Neeson, Gary Oldman, Ken Watanabe(spelling?), and Katie Holmes. Two of those actors are Oscar winners, Liam Neeson and Ken Watanabe are Oscar Nominated, and Katie Holmes was and is a very well known TV actress with Dawson's Creek.

So? George Clooney just won an Academy Award. Uma Thurman was already a legitimate actress.

Director Joel Schumacher did some very critically lauded and successful films as well.

Also, people were turned off from Katie Holmes because of you know what.

It's not about seeing the difference LastSunrise, its about not trusting WB and rightfully so after CINO and Batman and Robin. Trailers have been misleading before.

They couldn't see the better product, better director, and actors? I also feel that TomKat debacle didn't help BB either.

Dude, how many movies have a huge, legitimate cast and great filmmakers and bomb or just suck? It happens. Nolan's not a James Cameron type. He wasn't exactly an A-lister before Batman.

LastSunrise1981

04-15-2006, 10:18 PM

I saw plenty of TV spots.

Eh whatever, I saw plenty of kids the multiple times I saw it. I'm just saying, it doesn't play as broad as a Spider-man film.

So? George Clooney just won an Academy Award. Uma Thurman was already a legitimate actress.

Director Joel Schumacher did some very critically lauded and successful films as well.

Also, people were turned off from Katie Holmes because of you know what.

It's not about seeing the difference LastSunrise, its about not trusting WB and rightfully so after CINO and Batman and Robin. Trailers have been misleading before.

Dude, how many movies have a huge, legitimate cast and great filmmakers and bomb or just suck? It happens. Nolan's not a James Cameron type. He wasn't exactly an A-lister before Batman.

With Batman and Robin they got actors and actresses who were hot at the time. Granted they all were legitimate actors and had previous work, but they were popular in their own way.

Well as I said, if they couldn't seperate CINO from Batman Begins, then it doesn't say much about their intelligence. But that's just my view on the entire concept.

TheVileOne

04-15-2006, 11:09 PM

With Batman and Robin they got actors and actresses who were hot at the time. Granted they all were legitimate actors and had previous work, but they were popular in their own way.

You mean like . . . Katie Holmes and Ken Watanabe? Watanabe seemed like he was cast because of Last Samurai more than anything else.

Well as I said, if they couldn't seperate CINO from Batman Begins, then it doesn't say much about their intelligence. But that's just my view on the entire concept.

You keep misinterpreting. Catwoman came from Batman. Catwoman is a Batman character. Warner Brothers releases Catwoman in 2004. That's not exactly a smart move on their part to usher in a new Batman franchise. Nor does it help erase the memory of Batman and Robin.

Stop bashing the intelligence of moviegoers and start bashing the intelligence of executives that produce abortions and allow things like CINO to happen.

LastSunrise1981

04-16-2006, 07:03 AM

You mean like . . . Katie Holmes and Ken Watanabe? Watanabe seemed like he was cast because of Last Samurai more than anything else.

You keep misinterpreting. Catwoman came from Batman. Catwoman is a Batman character. Warner Brothers releases Catwoman in 2004. That's not exactly a smart move on their part to usher in a new Batman franchise. Nor does it help erase the memory of Batman Begins.

Stop bashing the intelligence of moviegoers and start bashing the intelligence of executives that produce abortions and allow things like CINO to happen.

I don't misunderstand at all. I understand Catwoman came from Batman and some were apprehensive, but if they couldn't seperate CINO from Batman Begins then it's their own stupidity and fault.

Oh, I'm not letting WB off the hook by any long shot. They really messed up when it came to CINO and felt the need to make it anyways. For that alone they definitely couldn't have been trusted, but if people can't make up their own minds or see how CINO and BB were two different entities, then they're really shallow and stupid to an extent.

I understand you have some who didn't want to see BB period. But there were some who were, and are closed minded, stuck up, and couldn't let go of the fact that it was a new beginning and this new beginning didn't involve Michael Keaton.

Darth Elektra

04-16-2006, 07:16 PM

I only saw 1 commercial and that was during espn news.

TheVileOne

04-16-2006, 07:26 PM

I don't misunderstand at all. I understand Catwoman came from Batman and some were apprehensive, but if they couldn't seperate CINO from Batman Begins then it's their own stupidity and fault.

It's not about separation. It's about skepticism that WB is still doing their BS crap to Batman with CINO. It's not stupidity at all. And it's easy to say since we're comic book fans and we know a lot more than general moviegoers do. Well about the movies and the comics.

Oh, I'm not letting WB off the hook by any long shot. They really messed up when it came to CINO and felt the need to make it anyways. For that alone they definitely couldn't have been trusted, but if people can't make up their own minds or see how CINO and BB were two different entities, then they're really shallow and stupid to an extent.

They did though. Word of mouth got out and the movie still did well despite all that.

I understand you have some who didn't want to see BB period. But there were some who were, and are closed minded, stuck up, and couldn't let go of the fact that it was a new beginning and this new beginning didn't involve Michael Keaton.

I don't think that's stuck up. The original is still a classic in many people's minds. The phenomenon of the original was lightning in a bottle really, its not something that happens often and you can just recreate with a new movie.

I SEE SPIDEY

04-17-2006, 10:26 AM

Antonello Blueberry

04-17-2006, 05:47 PM

"V for Vendetta" total worldwide today is $103,137,682

ZER0C00L

04-18-2006, 03:18 AM

go V

ultimatefan

04-18-2006, 11:44 AM

I think that Batman Begins boxoffice is only disappointing to over hyped fan boys and b.o predictors and studio folk. I don't think that BB ever had a shot at 300mil, because it was too dark and it didn't have one big b.o draw (it has well known actors who don't bring people to the theaters) and people didn't know what to expect. I also think that most movies that gross 300mil have to appeal to everybody and have lots of SFX, these days atleast. And like the X-Men films it felt like a teenage boy movie (thats not an insult) and it's realease date was a tough one.

There is alot more but I'm not going to get into it because other peoples post seem to cover it. I'm just going to say that despite all that, it was a success, it wasn't a huge one but WB is making another.

Exactly, some fans were expecting Spider-Man like numbers and that wasn´t going to happen. The BO was good and the movie did quite well on DVD sales, the eighth top-selling title of 2005. If WB had been disappointed, they wouldn´t be so active with the sequel. Nolan and Goyer made a treatment, Nolan´s brother Jonathan - who co-wrote Memento - is penning it as we speak and every skinny actor with a pointy chin in Hollywood is lobbying his butt off to play Joker. That´s a lot more than you can say for sequels for Hulk, Daredevil, Punisher...

V is close to making two and a half/three times its production budget worldwide, that´s enough to account marketing costs and exhibitors´share. It will more or less break even and make a very nice profit on DVD sales and rentals and TV deals.

Infinity9999x

04-18-2006, 05:11 PM

ThreeOfAKind

04-18-2006, 09:35 PM

If anyone is saying BB had just as good advertising as Spider-man, then I would have to say you're sorely mistaken. I know in my area, most people didn't even know a Batman movie was being released until it actually came out, and then many of my friends didn't see it. BB may have realeased a trailer earlier, but I barley saw it advertised on tv. Maybe it was different in other areas, but around here, it sure didn't look like much effort was being put into advertising.

Agreed. I rarely saw commercials for Vendetta or Begins. But, I used to see Spiderman, Ultra Violet, and Aeon Flux adverts EVERYWHERE. The only time I saw a pletora of ads? During the Olympics you would see 1-2 ads a night promoting the film. I think I saw 2 ads the week leading up to Vendetta's release.

Maybe I'm watching the wrong channels? I usually am watching ESPN, ESPNEWS, Science Channel, History Channel, Network TV, USA and TBS.

I think it just depends on the channels you watch, because some people swear to it that they saw a ton of marketing for V for Vendetta, and I swear the opposite.

Darth Elektra

04-19-2006, 02:30 AM

Maybe I'm watching the wrong channels? I usually am watching ESPN, ESPNEWS, Science Channel, History Channel, Network TV, USA and TBS.

I think it just depends on the channels you watch, because some people swear to it that they saw a ton of marketing for V for Vendetta, and I swear the opposite.

Espn and TBS are normally the two channels that have the most, but like you I didnt see but one.

TheVileOne

04-19-2006, 03:16 PM

If anyone is saying BB had just as good advertising as Spider-man, then I would have to say you're sorely mistaken. I know in my area, most people didn't even know a Batman movie was being released until it actually came out, and then many of my friends didn't see it. BB may have realeased a trailer earlier, but I barley saw it advertised on tv. Maybe it was different in other areas, but around here, it sure didn't look like much effort was being put into advertising.

Of course it wasn't as good as Spider-man. I'm not just subscribing to this perception that Warner Bros. didn't advertise it at all or advertised poorly.

So what if you saw Aeon Flux TV spots everywhere? The movie still bombed. Paramount withheld the movie from press screenings. That's an automatic indicator to moviegoers that the movie is garbage.

Evil Dead 13

04-20-2006, 03:58 AM

I'm going to pwoof in from nowhere, and just say that V for Vendetta is the most fantastic movie I've seen in quite some time. It is so snazzy, that there is absolutely nothing I would change about it. Nothing. (And that is rare for me to say of a non-Tim Burton or Sam Raimi flick.)

But I can also see why a lot of people don't and/or wouldn't like it. And that's the point, kinda--that people are allowed to think and feel what they want. But for me, it was pure giddiness. ::points to the screen and nods:: Yep. Got everything right on this one.

(Mind you, I'm a horrible person, and haven't read the book--yet. I feel like I've let myself down, for having not done so. To the bookstore!)

Evil Dead 13

04-20-2006, 03:59 AM

Aah! I didn't insert the pointy-out tounge. But apparently the characters I typed, did. Sorry. (I detest the smilies, and would never use them intentionally.)

Weadazoid

04-23-2006, 09:48 AM

I would have thought this movie would have had a bigger audience both here and aborad, but I guess it is not to be.

Odd to me that Consntantine did so well over seas, and even SIn City generated far more money then this....argualbly a well done political movie

Antonello Blueberry

05-06-2006, 02:22 PM

The boxoffice is now:
Domestic: $69,208,178 56.7%
+ Foreign: $52,800,000 43.3%
= Worldwide: $122,008,178
Not that bad.

SolidRoar

05-06-2006, 02:41 PM

V For Vendetta was released over here about a month ago. I have to say I didn't expect to like it as much as I did. People here perceived it pretty well and liked it very much.

BatJeff7786

05-12-2006, 03:13 PM

The dvd comes out August 1st.

http://www.dvdactive.com/news/releases/v-for-vendetta.html