2012: A Monster Year? (box office predictions)

[Tobias]

No doubt studios choose to under report to make it seem like less of a failure or greater success. But you don't know to what degree. So might as well go with the given figure.

I believe Superman Returns budget was less than that after tax breaks etc. Also back then people used to throw in the extra $40 million for all the failed projects before Singer finally got there.

Exactly! Pick a baseline.

Go by the numbers,

Cap cost 140 million and made 368 million.

Rounding the studios take comes to 202 million.

That leaves out marketing. Assuming marketing 50 million for Cap, SR and GL, that means Cap made 12 million just based on theatre revenues and costs.

Personally I think GL and SR had larger marketing budgets than Cap but giving WB the benefit of the doubt so to speak.

Close to break even. Thor comes out too with a small profit.

GL and SR are another story.

SR cost 232 to make and earned 391 in receipts. Assuming the 50 million in marketing costs that is a 55 million loss. Barely compensated for by the 80 million in DVD sales.

GL? A financial disaster worse than SR.

222 in receipts, 200 million to make. A 120 million dollar lose that DVD sales are not likely to make up for.

Noteworthy, enen successful films like Thor and Cap seem to only make small profits based on theatre receipts alone but, everything after that is icing on the cake.

Financial failues like GL and SR are failures because there is no icing on the cake.

It kind of explains why WB is reluctant to do superhero films.

 

[Iron_Stark]

I think you are way overstating Watchmen's failure. It was a failure no doubt but they didn't lost Green Lantern style money.

You keep stating that WB lost alot from Watchmen, and that's just not true. Watchmen was redeemed thanks to the DVD sales no more than a year later.

Technically, Watchmen is no longer considered a failure (revenue-wise).

Tell that to the people who lost their jobs thanks to those two movies.

And Watchmen didn't do Batman Begins type dvd sales, it didn't even crack the top 20 in sales that year. I don't know where you're thinking it did this massive sales in dvds.

 

[Evil Twin]

Tell that to the people who lost their jobs thanks to those two movies.

And Watchmen didn't do Batman Begins type dvd sales, it didn't even crack the top 20 in sales that year. I don't know where you're thinking it did this massive sales in dvds.

Why are you conflating those two movies together?

Watchmen had a reported budget of $130 million and grossed $184 million worldwide. So far, according to http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2009/WATCH.php, it made another $53 million in domestic DVD sales. Watchmen may still be in the red, but it's probably only $10 to $20 million in the red at worst. When you make big budget movies some aren't going to payoff, but Watchmen was hardly a disaster.

Meanwhile, Speed Racer had a $120 million budget, reportedly, and grossed $93 million worldwide. According to http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2008/SPDRC.php it's only sold around $15 million in DVDs.

Watchmen's grossed around $100 million over its budget and Speed Racer is about $10 million under its budget. Lumping them together is a disservice. Watchmen probably comes out ahead of something like Body of Lies from 2008.

Yeah, WB was disappointed that Watchmen didn't make more. But, if they were that confident about it, they'd have released it in summer.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

Tell that to the people who lost their jobs thanks to those two movies.

And Watchmen didn't do Batman Begins type dvd sales, it didn't even crack the top 20 in sales that year. I don't know where you're thinking it did this massive sales in dvds.

Numbers don't lie.

Watchmen raked in 107 million dollars at the box office (with 76 million in the international market) on a 130 million dollar budget. The DVD went on sale in July, and accumulated nearly 53 million dollars (selling over 2.5 million copies/units) in the process.

Yes, Watchmen ranked didn't rank in the Top 20... because the DVD was released in July and it went up against large titles like The Dark Knight, Twilight, Transformers ROTF, Harry Potter, The Hangover, James Bond, Fast & Furious, etc.

So you have to excuse my scuff at your hyperbolic statement indicating that Watchmen was a horrendous financial failure.

 

[Project862006]

they released it in march because 300 did huge in march

 

[mclay18]

As for this weekend's box office, I'm very surprised Journey 2: The Mysterious Island is holding well, only a a 27% decline from it's opening weekend. I'm sure part of it is due to President's Day weekend, due to families and kids seeing it on Saturday and Sunday as opposed to just the former. And as for Arriety's gross, it's not bad for an anime and the biggest U.S. weekend for a Studio Ghibli movie.

I'm surprised The Vow and Safe House are holding as well as they are. I do expect the latter to take a big decline once Tyler Perry's newest film comes out next week. But it seems like 2012 has been very good to most of the studios so far...

 

[Iron_Stark]

Numbers don't lie.

Watchmen raked in 107 million dollars at the box office (with 76 million in the international market) on a 130 million dollar budget. The DVD went on sale in July, and accumulated nearly 53 million dollars (selling over 2.5 million copies/units) in the process.

Yes, Watchmen ranked didn't rank in the Top 20... because the DVD was released in July and it went up against large titles like The Dark Knight, Twilight, Transformers ROTF, Harry Potter, The Hangover, James Bond, Fast & Furious, etc.

So you have to excuse my scuff at your hyperbolic statement indicating that Watchmen was a horrendous financial failure.

Yeah numbers don't lie, how much of that international money did Warner Bros. see? Out of the 107 million, how much did WB see when Paramount took 26% and Fox took another 8 1/2%? How much does WB really see from those dvd sales? You really think they get to see all of that 53 million from dvds?

 

[DoomsdayApex]

Nevertheless, your statement is a hyperbole. Watchmen was far from a financial disaster. There's a clear difference between underperforming and a box-office bomb. You clearly do not understand the concept between the two here.

If your analysis was correct, WB wouldn't be pursuing prequels/sequels to the franchise.

 

[Evil Twin]

Yeah numbers don't lie, how much of that international money did Warner Bros. see? Out of the 107 million, how much did WB see when Paramount took 26% and Fox took another 8 1/2%? How much does WB really see from those dvd sales? You really think they get to see all of that 53 million from dvds?

Certainly we don't know. You don't know either. How much did WB make on merchandising and sales of the graphic novels?

Yes, the rule of thumb is that a movie needs to make twice it's budget to turn a profit theatrically. Watchmen didn't do that, so it's clear that it didn't make money theatrically.

But, there's a difference between a disappointment and a studio crippling bomb. Studios don't make money on every film, there's risk in the business, and they understand it. Watchmen might have lost money for WB, before television, DVDs, merchandising, etc. kicked in, but there's certainly evidence that it's made money considering all the secondary sources at this point. Heck, $53 million in DVDs is merely domestic, who knows what WB has made overseas. That might not even include Blu Rays. Certainly, WB doesn't get 100% back, but the profit margin on a DVD is pretty sizable.

I think it's fair to say that Watchmen was a disappointment for WB financially. And, even then, expectations might have been out of whack for a morally complex, R-rated film without as much action as the trailers would suggest. But, Watchmen was certainly no Speed Racer level bomb. Mars Needs Moms is a bomb. John Carter is tracking like one. Watchmen probably made WB a little or lost WB a little, and the losses may be more attributable to WB's legal department than to the film and marketing, but it certainly is not in the same category of films that cause mass layoffs. Perhaps that's semantics, but words have meaning.

 

[chaseter]

Nevertheless, your statement is a hyperbole. Watchmen was far from a financial disaster. There's a clear difference between underperforming and a box-office bomb. You clearly do not understand the concept between the two here.

If your analysis was correct, WB wouldn't be pursuing prequels/sequels to the franchise.

Underperforming =\= net losses.

Watchmen was a failure...it lost money. It was a good movie but it was a bad financial investment. Had they had a crystal ball, it would had been made for $50 million less or not at all. It wasn't a huge bomb but it flopped.

 

[CConn]

Underperforming =\= net losses.

Watchmen was a failure...it lost money. It was a good movie but it was a bad financial investment. Had they had a crystal ball, it would had been made for $50 million less or not at all. It wasn't a huge bomb but it flopped.

Is it bad I really don't care that Watchmen did badly?

I mean, its not like we'd ever see a sequel to it anyway, and it was an awesome movie, and given its dark and graphic nature, I doubt it underperforming would give WB pause from making a Flash or other type of superhero film. I don't really give a **** that WB lost money on it.

 

[EML420]

This weeks top 5 people
Safe House $28.4 million
The Vow $26.6 million
Journey 2: The Mysterious Island $26.4 million
Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance $25.7 million
This Means War $20.4 million.
Source http://www.thehdroom.com/news/Updat...ow-in-Four-Day-Weekend-Box-Office-Brawl/10304

I consider Safe House more of Denzel´s hit then Reynolds if there are any actors who need help get them in a movie with Denzel hes a draw.

 

[Evil Twin]

I don't know if you can call a film that potentially has made money by now a flop. And, if it hasn't made money by now, that seems to be the fault of the legal department, not the creative and marketing departments.

You certainly can't call it a bomb and lump it in with something like Speed Racer. Those are two wholey separate cases.

At the very least, you have to define your terms between "disappointment", "flop", and "bomb". I think most people will accept Watchmen as a financial "disappointment" without too much fuss. Given that it's grossed, through various means, at least $100 million over its budget, it pretty much has to be somewhere in the ballpark of break even given worst case scenarios. Now, I agree WB wanted much more than break even out of Watchmen and perhaps they had the choice of another movie that would have done better in the same time frame, but Watchmen deserves to be in the conversation with something like The Incredible Hulk based on financial and other results.

 

[:eek:]

The Hunger Games Breaks Fandango's Twilight: Eclipse Record

Source: Fandango
February 23, 2012


Fandango announced today that advance ticketing records were set by Lionsgate's upcoming big screen adaptation The Hunger Games, which has already sold out hundreds of showtimes in advance of the film's March 23 release date. Even though the film doesn't open for another month, the first-day ticket sales on Wednesday, February 22 broke the previous first day advance ticket-seller record held by The Twilight Saga: Eclipse on Friday, May 14, 2010.

"'The Hunger Games' is off to a fantastic start," says Rick Butler, Executive Vice President and General Manager of Fandango. "Yesterday we saw the biggest first day advance ticketing sales in our company's nearly 12-year history – which is especially impressive for a March release and a non-sequel."

Theater owners are continuing to add new showtimes, while fans are scooping up advance tickets.

Directed by Gary Ross and based on the Suzanne Collins, The Hunger Games stars Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Liam Hemsworth, Woody Harrelson, Elizabeth Banks, Lenny Kravitz, Wes Bentley, Toby Jones, Alexander Ludwig, Isabelle Fuhrman, Amandla Stenberg, Stanley Tucci and Donald Sutherland.




​

 

[ThePowerCosmic]

 

[:eek:]

Top 6 worldwide so far:

1. The Intouchables $236,8 million
2. Journey 2: The Mysterious Island $191,3 million
3. The Secret World of Arrietty $136,5 million
4. Underworld Awakening $133 million
5. The Vow $115,8 million
6. Safe House $106,3 million

 

[Thedudehimself]

Well, well - the time has come. I will now post what I expect from the Movie-Year 2012. I will walk through my personal MOST WANTED list, starting with the film I dying to see most, and going down to the films I still want to see, but about which I m not exactly hyper-curios.

(This is to be PART 1 in a series of posts, I will talk about TWO movies in each post).

Lets start with...

1. PROMETHEUS

I expect nothing less than the best Ridley Scott film since "Gladiator", maybe even since "Blade Runner". When Ridley Scott returns to the SciFi Genre it just has to be something special. The trailer seems, as far as we can judge now, pretty atmospheric and this is exactly the thing which is important for "Prometheus": Dark Mood, long Camera-Shots and epic SciFi Scenes like the collapsing of the spaceship in the trailer and, and this is the most important thing of all, I want a mysterious plot until the very end. I don t want Ridley Scott to deconstruct the whole Space Jockey myth, but I certainly want an exciting story about them with some cool twists. I expect a dark Science Fiction masterpiece.

2. LINCOLN

A biopic about Abraham Lincoln made by the Master of the over-the-top emotional cinema Steven Spielberg. Well, that must be...ugly, wouldnt you agree?. I for one count myself as someone who accepts the simple fact that Spielberg is one of the biggest masters in the american film business, if not THE biggest. The man clearly doesent have to prove hisself worthy anymore, but still he is making good to very good films every few years, and even more importantly, after over 40 years of filmmaking he still goes for a difficult source material like a Lincoln biopic. For that alone the man deserves respect. I hope that Spielberg reduces the pathos which damaged "War Horse" a bit, I hope he makes Lincoln in a very serious tone. I want a nice "Acting piece" in which Daniel Day Lewis can show his full brilliance. Then, if Lewis can pull of the full variety of his great acting, "Lincoln" might be the hottest candidate for many prizes in the upcoming award season.

 

[rayc1971]

Why are you conflating those two movies together?

Watchmen had a reported budget of $130 million and grossed $184 million worldwide. So far, according to http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2009/WATCH.php, it made another $53 million in domestic DVD sales. Watchmen may still be in the red, but it's probably only $10 to $20 million in the red at worst. When you make big budget movies some aren't going to payoff, but Watchmen was hardly a disaster.

Meanwhile, Speed Racer had a $120 million budget, reportedly, and grossed $93 million worldwide. According to http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2008/SPDRC.php it's only sold around $15 million in DVDs.

Watchmen's grossed around $100 million over its budget and Speed Racer is about $10 million under its budget. Lumping them together is a disservice. Watchmen probably comes out ahead of something like Body of Lies from 2008.

Yeah, WB was disappointed that Watchmen didn't make more. But, if they were that confident about it, they'd have released it in summer.

the studio looks at domestic grosses when they decide whats a failer or not watchmen didnt make back its budget domestically! neither did speed racer so no sequels dispite worldwide numbers!

 

[Evil Twin]

the studio looks at domestic grosses when they decide whats a failer or not watchmen didnt make back its budget domestically! neither did speed racer so no sequels dispite worldwide numbers!

The accountants look at the total revenue to decide if movies made money or not. And that's the question, not whether sequels are warranted. Nobody has really suggested that WB needs to go ahead with sequels for either.

Speed Racer definitely lost WB money. A lot. And probably resulted in people being let go.

Watchmen is somewhere in the neighborhood of breakeven.

I don't think it's too big a leap in logic to suggest that those are two separate situations and shouldn't be lumped together.

And, besides, what do either have to do with 2012 box office?

 

[Selim844]

Guys how big do you think the Hunger Games will open? I've been talking with some guys over at another site, and they're telling me at least $125m. I was thinking more like $80m and along those lines.

Any predictions?

 

[Liam_H]

I could be wrong but I highly doubt it. Only two non-sequel movies have ever opened above $100 million. That was Spider-Man and Alice in Wonderland at $114 and $116 million respectively.

But Alice in Wonderland was also a March opener so its possible, also that had so many factors in favor of it also. Any opening within the $60-80 million range is a great success.

 

[jmc]

Guys how big do you think the Hunger Games will open? I've been talking with some guys over at another site, and they're telling me at least $125m. I was thinking more like $80m and along those lines.

Any predictions?

If it makes that much money or more on its opening weekend (in the US) I will change my SHH avatar to that of a flying pig for an entire year.

 

[Lily Adler]

I'm going to hold you to that jmc.

 

[Marvin]

Avengers is going to make some serious money.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

If it makes that much money or more on its opening weekend (in the US) I will change my SHH avatar to that of a flying pig for an entire year.

I think that people are reading way too much into that "highest seller on Fandago" news. Twilight was a way more popular book series and the first movie only did 69mil. Now that doesn't mean that if Games can't open above that but 125mil? I have a hard time seeing that happen.

I would be utter shocked Games opened with 125mil. I can see it hitting early 70's but 125mil? Nah.