X3 Box Office Tracker

[Theweepeople]

Your comparing B&R to X3?? Go buy a horse and go live in the mountains and don't bother anybody.

Here is another unnecessary negative response. You completely missunderstood my point. First of all I never said B&R was as good as X3. X3 is light years ahead of B&R in terms of plot and quality. The reason I mentioned B&R was because it was film that kicked butt overseas, struggled domestically, and killed the Batman franchise. X3 has kicked butt overseas and has struggled domestically considering its budget. I will talk to you all later because I've got chores to do.

 

[Weadazoid]

Here is another unnecessary negative response. You completely missunderstood my point. First of all I never said B&R was as good as X3. X3 is light years ahead of B&R in terms of plot and quality. The reason I mentioned B&R was because it was film that kicked butt overseas, struggled domestically, and killed the Batman franchise. X3 has kicked butt overseas and has struggled domestically considering its budget. I will talk to you all later because I've got chores to do.

By that turn then Superman must pas well over 275 Million in your books to be a success.....domesticly?


X3 cost 210 Million http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=x3.htm to make and is now at 224.... but still not a success quite..in your books

Superman cost 260 Million http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=showtimes&id=superman06.htm


So when it reaches 274 in the states....still not a great success to you eh.... Considering budgets and all





and while on the topic then by all means FF is and was as successful as BB last year since both made 50 Million more then the budget.... perhaps in the end by your logic both BB and FF will be more successful then X3 or Superman?

 

[Theweepeople]

By that turn then Superman must pas well over 275 Million in your books to be a success.....domesticly?


X3 cost 210 Million http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=x3.htm to make and is now at 224.... but still not a success quite..in your books

Superman cost 260 Million http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=showtimes&id=superman06.htm


So when it reaches 274 in the states....still not a great success to you eh.... Considering budgets and all





and while on the topic then by all means FF is and was as successful as BB last year since both made 50 Million more then the budget.... perhaps in the end by your logic both BB and FF will be more successful then X3 or Superman?

I agree with everything in this post and yes FF was more successful than BB domestically. FF had 55% profit of its budget while BB had a 37% profit. You are also, right both BB and FF could be more successful domestically than Superman and X3. Overall the success of these films is relative. Success depends on how much money spent, how much money, was made, and how much time and effort was put into developing these films.

 

[antariksh]

The start of the World Cup elimination rounds, hot weather across much of Europe and a lack of new wide releases contributed to a lackluster weekend at the international box office.

Warner Bros Pictures International (WBPI)'s Poseidon led the pack with an estimated $9.9m gross from approximately 4,000 prints in 49 countries, raising the commendable international tally to $84.7m.

The result was powered by two impressive number one debuts as the adventure saga took $2.6m from 371 prints in Russia, and $997,100 from 291 in Brazil.

In two smaller debuts, Poseidon opened number one in Turkey on $255,500 from 134, and was expected to finish number one in Belgium on $399,700 from 63. After two weekends Poseidon stands at $2.8m in France and held on to top place in Argentina on $673,100.

Warner Bros/Village Roadshow's romance The Lake House opened in the UK through WBPI on 343 prints and ranked second on $1.5m. The first major international debut follows last weekend's North American launch.

Sony Pictures Releasing International's The Da Vinci Code took $9m gross on 5,850 screens in 84 markets to raise its international running total to $496m. Combined with the $205.5m domestic tally the picture has amassed $701.5m worldwide.

Ron Howard's adventure has seen the biggest returns in Japan, where it remained number after six weekends and added $2.4m on 764 screens for $68m. After the same amount of time it ranks number one in Germany on a $44.2m tally, fourth in the UK on $53m, and third in Spain on $31m.

The Adam Sandler comedy Click opened day-and-date with North America in Australia and New Zealand, taking $3.4m on a total 333 screens from both markets.

Click opened top in Australia on $3m, a very strong result that produced the biggest local currency opening yet for a Sandler comedy on Au$4.03m, some 22% bigger than The Waterboy's Au$3.3m in 1998. New Zealand also generated a number one debut on $365,000, setting another local currency record for Sandler as NZD581,000 beat by 6% NZD546,000 set by Mr Deeds in 2002.

Fox International reported a $4m weekend gross for The Omen on 1,836 screens in 45 territories that raised the international cumulative total to $55m.

Another horror remake, Alex Aja's The Hills Have Eyes, opened in the director's home country of France and took a disappointing $290,000 on 244 screens. Overall the picture stands at $16.3m from all its markets to date.

X-Men: The Last Stand is living up to its title following a strong campaign, adding $6m on 2,897 screens in 24 territories, elevating the tally to $192m. Garfield: A Tale Of Two Kitties grossed $1m on 444 screens in four territories and stands at $3m from the early stages.

Paramount's Mission: Impossible 3 took $1m from 1,200 sites through UIP; the action sequel has reached $205.5m with China and Japan still to come.

Over The Hedge added $5.4m from 1,358 venues in 19 territories to raise the tally to $25.1m including South Korea, where it has taken more than $5.6m and is not handled by UIP.

The animated release opened in second place in Australia on $3m from 243 sites and must have taken a fraction less than SPRI's Click, given that the one-two pecking order in favour of Click was not contested by UIP last night. Over The Hedge opened number two in New Zealand on $262,000 from 65.

Buena Vista International had not reported weekend figures at time of writing.


SOURCE:Screendaily

SAD part is the movie collapsed in both South korea and Taiwan. I ws hoping it would $16+ million in South Korea and $3+ million in Taiwan. But it WON'T!!!

BAD BAD BAD BAD boxoffice performance.

Screw X-men 3 hell F4 had a much better boxoffice run both domestically and overseas.

 

[Advanced Dark]

^ So another 10 million for the full week. Antarkish you're a freak sometimes. Fantastic Four barely made 170 million overseas. X3 is gonna make 240 million overseas. Get a grip. Fantastic Four only made just over 150 milion domestic while X3 is gonna make 80 million more. Take some ritalin and figure out wtf you're talking about. Jeez.

 

[antariksh]

^ So another 10 million for the full week. Antarkish you're a freak sometimes. Fantastic Four barely made 170 million overseas. X3 is gonna make 240 million overseas. Get a grip. Fantastic Four only made just over 150 milion domestic while X3 is gonna make 80 million more. Take some ritalin and figure out wtf you're talking about. Jeez.

I am talking about boxoffice performance NOT total boxoffice.

X3 dropped 55%+ this weekend overseas.

F4 never had that kind of drops, It kept doing decent business.

By now X3 should have done $200 million PERIOD.

No way will this movie do $240 million overseas GUARANTEED.

 

[Advanced Dark]

You just don't getit do you. After all the posts about frontloading movies to capture the box office in the first week or two. The studio's don't give 2 craps about 3rd and 4th week drop offs after huge weekends. They made their money and the split gets worse for the studio as time goes on. Making 122 in 4 days is better than making 150 million in 2 weeks. X3 is at 192 overseas now. I thought it was already there. You can add another 40 million to that figure.

 

[Carp Man]

I have added that $ 192 million figure to my sig. Updated #'s below. It's passed X2's domestic, overseas, and worldwide #'s.

 

[phantom47]

we will def. see a boost after the world cup is over in all international movies

 

[Advanced Dark]

And another 22-25 just from Japan in September.

 

[Iceman]

And another 22-25 just from Japan in September.

Did we ever find out the reason for the late release in Japan?

 

[danoyse]

No bruises here. I just find it funny that you think my statistics are worthless. Statistics are one of the many and biggest factors that dictate whether a film will be made(This is not an opinion.).

It's just that you don't have a thing to back up your statistics.

 

[BMM]

Your problem is that they're not saying much. It was a nice simple model but a quick scan is enough to convince most people that it's seriously flawed. So my advice is to stop the boasting because it makes you look silly.

Haha. Wow. Nothing like a Hype Boards onslaught . . . actually, to be fair, Theweepeople’s nice simple model isn't seriously flawed. It's no more flawed than the average posts found in a box office tracker thread--or the reasoning behind starting a box office tracker thread in which such posts are inevitably going to be made from time to time.

Regardless, the point of his model is to compare The Last Stand's profit percentages with other comparable blockbusters--and his basic logic holds despite what some would like to think.

The point of his model is to demonstrate that given the The Last Stand's budget, when compared to comparable budgets of similar blockbusters, the profit percentage is perhaps less than impressive.

. . . and for those complaining about Theweepeople’s failure to include international figures in such percentages, you may want to do yourselves a favor and not mention them, as they do little to help your argument either. Honestly, feel free to include them in a budget v. profit percentage comparison (or just feel free to compare the international numbers in general), but if you do, be prepared to also note that a comparison of such figures only further detracts from The Last Stand’s footing.

These are a few of the examples of the international numbers via the initial comparisons with The Last Stand.


Batman - 160,000,000
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone - 658,900,000
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets - 614,700,000
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban - 540,263,200
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire - 602,200,000
Ice Age - 206,871,808
Ice Age: The Meltdown - 443,082,287
The Lord of The Rings: Fellowship of the Ring - 556,592,194
The Lord of The Rings: The Two Towers - 584,000,000
The Lord of The Rings: The Return of the King -
741, 861,654
The Matrix - 288,900,000
The Matrix Revolutions - 285,674,263
Pirates of The Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl - 348,500,000
Shrek - 216,744,207
Shrek 2 - 479,439,411
Spider-Man - 418,002,176
Spider-Man 2 - 410,180,516
Star Wars: Episode III-Revenge of the Sith - 493,229,257


Also, I wouldn’t bother complaining about not including DVD/Rental sales, television rights, and least of all merchandising into the equation either. If you would like to compare The Last Stand’s merchandising, etc. with the likes of Harry Potter, Ice Age, The Lord of The Rings, Pirates of the Caribbean, Shrek, Spider-Man, Star Wars, etc., be my guest, but somehow, I don’t think it’s going to help the comparison.

Is The Last Stand a box office failure? No. But when spending over 200 million dollars on a single film, perhaps a movie studio is expecting to recoup not only comparable domestic sums, as such films typically accrue . . . perhaps they are also expecting to recoup similar international figures as well . . . and with the exception of 1989’s Batman, Ice Age, and Shrek, The Last Stand is severely lacking--and for those wanting to blame it on people watching The World Cup instead . . . feel free to look at the 2002 international figures for comparable movies such as Men in Black II, Minority Report, Spider-Man, Star Wars: Episode II-Attack of the Clones, etc. (all of which essentially performed at least as well as The Last Stand, if not much much better and cost at least 70 million dollars less to make as well).

 

[Theweepeople]

It's just that you don't have a thing to back up your statistics.

I already gave you my answer to this question many threads back. Please ask me something different for a change.

 

[danoyse]

I already gave you my answer to this question many threads back. Please ask me something different for a change.

Your sources?

Try reading back a few pages on the thread...there's been much more credible discussion about the good and the bad about X3's box office.

 

[Theweepeople]

Haha. Wow. Nothing like a Hype Boards onslaught . . . actually, to be fair, Theweepeople’s nice simple model isn't seriously flawed. It's no more flawed than the average posts found in a box office tracker thread--or the reasoning behind starting a box office tracker thread in which such posts are inevitably going to be made from time to time.

Regardless, the point of his model is to compare The Last Stand's profit percentages with other comparable blockbusters--and his basic logic holds despite what some would like to think.

The point of his model is to demonstrate that given the The Last Stand's budget, when compared to comparable budgets of similar blockbusters, the profit percentage is perhaps less than impressive.

. . . and for those of you complaining about Theweepeople’s failure to include international figures in such percentages, you may want to do yourselves a favor and not mention them, as they do little to help your argument either. Honestly, feel free to include them in a budget v. profit percentage comparison (or just feel free to compare the international numbers in general), but if you do, be prepared to note that a comparison of such figures only further detract from The Last Stand’s footing.

These are a few of the examples of the international numbers via the initial comparisons with The Last Stand.


Batman - 160,000,000
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone - 658,900,000
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets - 614,700,000
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban - 540,263,200
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire - 602,200,000
Ice Age - 206,871,808
Ice Age: The Meltdown - 443,082,287
The Lord of The Rings: Fellowship of the Ring - 556,592,194
The Lord of The Rings: The Two Towers - 584,000,000
The Lord of The Rings: The Return of the King -
741, 861,654
The Matrix - 288,900,000
The Matrix Revolutions - 285,674,263
Pirates of The Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl - 348,500,000
Shrek - 216,744,207
Shrek 2 - 479,439,411
Spider-Man - 418,002,176
Spider-Man 2 - 410,180,516
Star Wars: Episode III-Revenge of the Sith - 493,229,257


Also, I wouldn’t bother complaining about not including DVD/Rental sales, television rights, and least of all merchandising into the equation either. If you would like to compare The Last Stand’s merchandising, etc. with the likes of Harry Potter, Ice Age, The Lord of The Rings, Pirates of the Caribbean, Shrek, Spider-Man, Star Wars, etc., be my guest, but somehow, I don’t think it’s going to help the comparison.

Is The Last Stand a box office failure? No. But when spending over 200 million dollars on a single film, perhaps a movie studio is expecting to recoup not only comparable domestic sums, as such films typically accrue . . . perhaps they are also expecting to recoup similar international figures as well . . . and with the exception of 1989’s Batman, Ice Age, and Shrek, The Last Stand is severely lacking--and for those of you wanting to blame it on people watching The World Cup instead . . . feel free to look at the 2002 international figures for comparable movies such as Men in Black II, Minority Report, Spider-Man, Star Wars: Episode II-Attack of the Clones, etc. (all of which cost at least 70 million less to make as well).

Nice research BMM.

 

[Theweepeople]

Your sources?

Try reading back a few pages on the thread...there's been much more credible discussion about the good and the bad about X3's box office.

My sources are in the other thread I started. Unless of course you want me to repost everything already discussed in that thread.

 

[danoyse]

My sources are in the other thread I started. Unless of course you want me to repost everything already discussed in that thread.

There's no source listed in the opening post of that thread you started.

Although, there is this quote from you:

Math may be one of my weakest subjects

 

[Theweepeople]

There's no source listed in the opening post of that thread you started.

Although, there is this quote from you:

I do have sources. You missed my posts about getting my information from Lee's box office report and box office mojo and I am not good at math. So what is your point?

 

[josh8]

I'm not boasting. Nor am I convinced that my opinion is 100% right and everyone who disagrees with me is 100% wrong. My intention to start that thread was not to make me look inteligent and everyone else stupid. I just wanted to know what everyone thought of those statistics. Instead I got praise from people who hated X-Men 3 and wanted it to fail. I also, got ridicule from people who loved X-Men 3 and think everyone who criticizes the film is an idiot. All I wanted to read were differences in opinions. I didn't expect to experience all this hate.

i'm not here to bring the hate on anyone, but i think your logic in that other thread left a lot of people annoyed.

you were suggesting to people that they needed a "reality check" and needed to look at the numbers more clearly, but you were the one that took two lone numbers (domestic total and production budget) and then drawing a whole bunch of conclusions.

fact of the matter, you accused people of not being good thinkers and then demonstrated that you were not one either (at least in that post).

i'm starting to see what you meant in that people will misinterpret domestic numbers (like B&R) and then assume it did badly overall without accounting for the international stuff. however, if you're going to say the public has the resources and interest to look up these numbers, then you cant underestimate their understanding of the other factors involved in a movie's financial success.

 

[josh8]

Haha. Wow. Nothing like a Hype Boards onslaught . . . actually, to be fair, Theweepeople’s nice simple model isn't seriously flawed. It's no more flawed than the average posts found in a box office tracker thread--or the reasoning behind starting a box office tracker thread in which such posts are inevitably going to be made from time to time.

Regardless, the point of his model is to compare The Last Stand's profit percentages with other comparable blockbusters--and his basic logic holds despite what some would like to think.

The point of his model is to demonstrate that given the The Last Stand's budget, when compared to comparable budgets of similar blockbusters, the profit percentage is perhaps less than impressive.

. . . and for those complaining about Theweepeople’s failure to include international figures in such percentages, you may want to do yourselves a favor and not mention them, as they do little to help your argument either. Honestly, feel free to include them in a budget v. profit percentage comparison (or just feel free to compare the international numbers in general), but if you do, be prepared to also note that a comparison of such figures only further detracts from The Last Stand’s footing.

These are a few of the examples of the international numbers via the initial comparisons with The Last Stand.


Batman - 160,000,000
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone - 658,900,000
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets - 614,700,000
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban - 540,263,200
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire - 602,200,000
Ice Age - 206,871,808
Ice Age: The Meltdown - 443,082,287
The Lord of The Rings: Fellowship of the Ring - 556,592,194
The Lord of The Rings: The Two Towers - 584,000,000
The Lord of The Rings: The Return of the King -
741, 861,654
The Matrix - 288,900,000
The Matrix Revolutions - 285,674,263
Pirates of The Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl - 348,500,000
Shrek - 216,744,207
Shrek 2 - 479,439,411
Spider-Man - 418,002,176
Spider-Man 2 - 410,180,516
Star Wars: Episode III-Revenge of the Sith - 493,229,257


Also, I wouldn’t bother complaining about not including DVD/Rental sales, television rights, and least of all merchandising into the equation either. If you would like to compare The Last Stand’s merchandising, etc. with the likes of Harry Potter, Ice Age, The Lord of The Rings, Pirates of the Caribbean, Shrek, Spider-Man, Star Wars, etc., be my guest, but somehow, I don’t think it’s going to help the comparison.

Is The Last Stand a box office failure? No. But when spending over 200 million dollars on a single film, perhaps a movie studio is expecting to recoup not only comparable domestic sums, as such films typically accrue . . . perhaps they are also expecting to recoup similar international figures as well . . . and with the exception of 1989’s Batman, Ice Age, and Shrek, The Last Stand is severely lacking--and for those wanting to blame it on people watching The World Cup instead . . . feel free to look at the 2002 international figures for comparable movies such as Men in Black II, Minority Report, Spider-Man, Star Wars: Episode II-Attack of the Clones, etc. (all of which essentially performed at least as well as The Last Stand, if not much much better and cost at least 70 million dollars less to make as well).

you're falling into the "look how much better these movies did than that movie" set of arguments, and that is just not a good way of thinking.

yes, if a studio puts in so much money, they expect a lot back, but given the x-men movies and their box office history, no one was expecting harry potter numbers. if the 210 mil production budget holds up (which i doubt will), that would mean that x3 cost about 120mil more than x2 (after an increase in the marketing budget). and it will make about 50mil more from box office revenue. so yes, if that budget is correct, then it wont be as profitable as x2. but that's a big IF. i really think that number is bogus because 200mil movies are pretty rare and i just dont see x3 costing that much.

so haha i dont know where i'm going with this. i just wanted to comment on your comparisons.

 

[Theweepeople]

i'm not here to bring the hate on anyone, but i think your logic in that other thread left a lot of people annoyed.

you were suggesting to people that they needed a "reality check" and needed to look at the numbers more clearly, but you were the one that took two lone numbers (domestic total and production budget) and then drawing a whole bunch of conclusions.

fact of the matter, you accused people of not being good thinkers and then demonstrated that you were not one either (at least in that post).

i'm starting to see what you meant in that people will misinterpret domestic numbers (like B&R) and then assume it did badly overall without accounting for the international stuff. however, if you're going to say the public has the resources and interest to look up these numbers, then you cant underestimate their understanding of the other factors involved in a movie's financial success.

Okay I will admit that the title of my thread sounds arrogant. But, the only reason I chose that title was to get peoples attention. I did not mean to make anyone angry. I agree there are other factors beside domestic gross that may(sometimes not) determine whether a movie is success or not.

 

[Theweepeople]

you're falling into the "look how much better these movies did than that movie" set of arguments, and that is just not a good way of thinking.

yes, if a studio puts in so much money, they expect a lot back, but given the x-men movies and their box office history, no one was expecting harry potter numbers. if the 210 mil production budget holds up (which i doubt will), that would mean that x3 cost about 120mil more than x2 (after an increase in the marketing budget). and it will make about 50mil more from box office revenue. so yes, if that budget is correct, then it wont be as profitable as x2. but that's a big IF. i really think that number is bogus because 200mil movies are pretty rare and i just dont see x3 costing that much.

so haha i dont know where i'm going with this. i just wanted to comment on your comparisons.

Are you saying the actors and actresses of X-Men 3 who said the budget of X-Men 3 was over 200 million and box office mojo are both wrong?

 

[TerryRL]

X3 is not only going to become the first film of the franchise to pass the $200 million mark in overseas box office earnings, it will also become only the third film from the comic book/superhero genre to top that amount of coin internationally. It will join the two Spider-Man movies on that very short list.

The film's $416.7 million worldwide haul now makes it the most successful flick of the X-Men franchise, passing the $407.6 million of X2.

 

[muscaremy]

hasnt it yet to come out in the asian markets too..or am i mistaken