V For Vendetta Box Office Tracking Thread

[I SEE SPIDEY]

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]

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 is reality isn't much worse than the second one.

They both suck, it doesnt matter which sucks more. Its essentially what youre saying right?

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

They both suck, it doesnt matter which sucks more. Its essentially what youre saying right?

My post isn't the least bit confusing.

 

[Darthphere]

My post isn't the least bit confusing.

 

[TheVileOne]

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]

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.

 

[TheVileOne]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Nivek]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?"