|
Post by wombat on Dec 30, 2010 6:07:44 GMT -5
The Hollywood Reporter writes about international box office for 2010 here. A couple of interesting bits: I think there's a big exception to that 60% rule - comic book movies which tend to gross more in the US and Cananda than in the rest of the world, though the gap may be closing. (For example, Iron Man 2 grossed about $2.5m more domestically than internationally). In 2009, Wolverine grossed $193m overseas (51% of worldwide). That's more than Fox's #2 for 2010. If Real Steel works out, I think it will be one of those films with more than 60% from overseas.
|
|
|
Post by narrows101 on Jan 5, 2011 19:39:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by klenotka on Jan 11, 2011 6:30:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mamaleh on Jan 11, 2011 8:46:11 GMT -5
Pat, Herbie is the unassuming agent whom Rose, the ultimate stage mother ("Sing out, Louise!"), meets at a children's talent contest. She steamrolls her way into his life, and he goes along for the ride, becoming her daughters' agent-manager as well as Rose's lover. He is always asking her to marry him, but she says not until the girls hit the big time in vaudeville. He's kind of a likable milksop through most of the story, but he finally grows some backbone and opts out of their nutty existence, leaving Rose temporarily devastated--until daughter Louise becomes Gypsy Rose Lee. Karl Malden played the role in the movie, and in recent revival it was Boyd Gaines. Hanks is probably a good choice for the role. Herbie doesn't sing much, and he's not supposed to be an Adonis.
|
|
|
Post by narrows101 on Jan 12, 2011 12:36:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by narrows101 on Jan 13, 2011 10:17:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mamaleh on Jan 13, 2011 10:55:05 GMT -5
Well, then, I have the perfect plot for Fox's next big hit: This time, Wolverine, tricked by his "brother's" bad adivce, is trapped under tons of rolling logs, and must cut his arm off. Of course, it grows right back. Then he seeks shelter backstage at a nearby ballet company where he dons a hunter's costume to confuse his pursuers. Swept onto the stage with the corps de ballet, he tries to make a speech, but they laugh at his Canuck accent. Surrounded by enemies, he finds an untended computer and posts an urgent call for asisstance from his fellow X-men on his Facebook page. Unfortunately, they are all at a vacation-retreat at a ranch, where they learn to ride horses with the reins dangling from their mouths. How will he survive? Wait for the sequel.
Seriously, though, yes, most of those movies are critics' darlings. But aside from TRUE GRIT, is any of them really a moneymaking blockbuster in the true sense of the word?
|
|
|
Post by Kristin on Jan 13, 2011 11:08:38 GMT -5
Seriously, though, yes, most of those movies are critics' darlings. But aside from TRUE GRIT, is any of them really a moneymaking blockbuster in the true sense of the word? Actually, even one of the most iconic films ever, The Wizard of Oz, wasn't a moneymaker, until it was re-released in 1949. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wizard_of_Oz_%281939_film%29Obviously, I'm not saying any of those films will become a long-term success like The Wizard of Oz, but money doesn't always equate to a good film, and vice-versa. Otherwise half of Adam Sandler's films wouldn't even get made, but they do because they make some money. LOL. I think a lot of it is that more often than not now, some of the best films are independents, so while I'm sure they'd love to have big studios financing everything and having their films shown on more screens, it's not fiscally possible, so there's limited places to actually see them, unless you live in a major city, pretty much.
|
|
|
Post by icelemt38 on Jan 13, 2011 13:04:34 GMT -5
Well, then, I have the perfect plot for Fox's next big hit: This time, Wolverine, tricked by his "brother's" bad adivce, is trapped under tons of rolling logs, and must cut his arm off. Of course, it grows right back. Then he seeks shelter backstage at a nearby ballet company where he dons a hunter's costume to confuse his pursuers. Swept onto the stage with the corps de ballet, he tries to make a speech, but they laugh at his Canuck accent. Surrounded by enemies, he finds an untended computer and posts an urgent call for asisstance from his fellow X-men on his Facebook page. Unfortunately, they are all at a vacation-retreat at a ranch, where they learn to ride horses with the reins dangling from their mouths. How will he survive? Wait for the sequel. Seriously, though, yes, most of those movies are critics' darlings. But aside from TRUE GRIT, is any of them really a moneymaking blockbuster in the true sense of the word? Actually all of those movies mentioned except for 127 Hours are huge BO hits right now. You have to look at it relatively compared to the budget. It's absolutely mind boggling that "Black Swan" is currently over 60M right now, that's more than ALL of Darren's film's BO COMBINED and the budget for that film was around 15M. "The Fighter" is going strong as well, and it will end up close to if not over 80M, again with a relatively low budget. This week "Black Swan" increased it's attendance while keeping the same number of theaters, that rarely happens. And "The King's Speech" opened extremely strongly, and post Oscar nods, it will make so much more. "True Grit" is doing really well, over 100M and it's budget is more. Of those movies, "True Grit" is the only one that had a wide release, the other movies never reached more than 1000 screens and are staying around that. A lot of the time, that's the wise thing to do, keeping demand high and supply limited. So these movies have made so much money but the mainstream would never know because they hover around 8-10M per week for weeks on end while wide release films open at 25M, lose 50% with every week to follow. Remember "The Fountain" originally was going to be a platform release as well, and then last minute it was decided that it would open wide with 2000 screens, and we know the rest of the story.
|
|
|
Post by wombat on Jan 13, 2011 13:21:29 GMT -5
The UK theatres are ridiculously overcrowded at the moment. I wanted to see The Way Back but found it had gone after just one week despite opening with more than $2m.
UK box office last weekend: 1. (-) The King's Speech - £3,523,102 2. (-) 127 Hours - £2,168,570 3. (2) Little Fockers - £1,798,677 4. (1) Gulliver's Travels - £1,554,266 5. (-) The Next Three Days - £1,046,333 6. (3) Love & Other Drugs - £807,912 7. (7) Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows: Part 1 - £712,728 8. (6) Tron: Legacy - £639,903 9. (5) The Chronicles Of Narnia: The Voyage Of The Dawn Treader - £621,393 10. (-) Season Of The Witch - £559,769
Note that The Kings' Speech and 127 hours have a fairly wide release, in around 400 theatres.
|
|
|
Post by icelemt38 on Jan 13, 2011 13:25:37 GMT -5
How interesting Wombat! Good to see movies like The King's Speech and 127 Hours beating out crap like Little Fockers and Gulliver's Travels, now that's something that most likely would not happen in America ever. But it's good to see True Grit on top over here.
|
|
|
Post by mamaleh on Jan 13, 2011 13:29:23 GMT -5
Well, then, I have the perfect plot for Fox's next big hit: This time, Wolverine, tricked by his "brother's" bad adivce, is trapped under tons of rolling logs, and must cut his arm off. Of course, it grows right back. Then he seeks shelter backstage at a nearby ballet company where he dons a hunter's costume to confuse his pursuers. Swept onto the stage with the corps de ballet, he tries to make a speech, but they laugh at his Canuck accent. Surrounded by enemies, he finds an untended computer and posts an urgent call for asisstance from his fellow X-men on his Facebook page. Unfortunately, they are all at a vacation-retreat at a ranch, where they learn to ride horses with the reins dangling from their mouths. How will he survive? Wait for the sequel. Seriously, though, yes, most of those movies are critics' darlings. But aside from TRUE GRIT, is any of them really a moneymaking blockbuster in the true sense of the word? Actually all of those movies mentioned except for 127 Hours are huge BO hits right now. You have to look at it relatively compared to the budget. It's absolutely mind boggling that "Black Swan" is currently over 60M right now, that's more than ALL of Darren's film's BO COMBINED and the budget for that film was around 15M. "The Fighter" is going strong as well, and it will end up close to if not over 80M, again with a relatively low budget. This week "Black Swan" increased it's attendance while keeping the same number of theaters, that rarely happens. And "The King's Speech" opened extremely strongly, and post Oscar nods, it will make so much more. "True Grit" is doing really well, over 100M and it's budget is more. Of those movies, "True Grit" is the only one that had a wide release, the other movies never reached more than 1000 screens and are staying around that. A lot of the time, that's the wise thing to do, keeping demand high and supply limited. So these movies have made so much money but the mainstream would never know because they hover around 8-10M per week for weeks on end while wide release films open at 25M, lose 50% with every week to follow. Remember "The Fountain" originally was going to be a platform release as well, and then last minute it was decided that it would open wide with 2000 screens, and we know the rest of the story. Relative to budget, sure, they're hits. But that's why I specified "in the true sense of the word"--that is, a film that rakes in north of, say, $150 million or so domestically. Still, it's encouraging that small films seem to be gaining acceptance.
|
|
|
Post by icelemt38 on Jan 13, 2011 13:38:36 GMT -5
But a blockbuster is just a big hit right, even in the true sense of the word? How can it be expected for a movie that costs 15M to make over 150M when you can't even compare the marketing costs and all that is associated with a higher budget movie. We're talking smaller movies making 500% their budget while "True Grit" making 200% it's budget at most. If a blockbuster truly means a movie that makes 150M or more, then I find it extremely unfair to smaller movies as so many have proved to be monster hits while some films with budgets of 100M+ make barely that and could be considered a blockbuster.
|
|
|
Post by cath112 on Jan 13, 2011 14:39:19 GMT -5
I find it interesting that "quality" was the third thing mentioned after innovation and experimentation. I think the success of The King's Speech is so promising if the studio execs will realize that it's the quality that is working. There aren't bells and whistles, tricky photography, any innovation, as far as I know. (it's been on the top of my list for WEEKS but between revolving doors of houseguests and the Cold from Hell that will not quit, I haven't been to see anything. Whine whine whine) It's a quality script, high quality acting, and a story that people care about that make it work. I'm not saying that that's the only kind of movie that should be made -- action, comedy (adolescent and otherwise), romance all have an audience, but quality should be their first byword, I would think.
I know I"m always pointing out that I'm not the prime target audience, but it occurs to me, why not? I mean, I'm part of the largest population bubble in history, the most populous gender of that bubble, at an age where many of us are lucky enough to have both time and disposable income. Why the heck am I not a target audience? If their answer is that we don't go to movies, my response is make movies that we want to see and we'll be there. Surely I'm not the only person out there who wants more The King's Speech and less Tron (or Wolverine, for that matter).
|
|
|
Post by icelemt38 on Jan 13, 2011 14:57:17 GMT -5
While that is very true Cath, you have to realize that you pointed out that you haven't been able to see the movies you've wanted this season for the various reasons you mentioned. I think that's a big reason as to why it's not really your generation that drives BO these days and more so mine. The baby boomers are less likely to go to the cinema as frequent as teeny boppers and 20somethings because they have more responsibilities(family, work, obligations of all sorts) that keep them from going to the cinema as often. Also teens are much more likely to do repeat viewings of the same movie, a lot more so than any older generation. That's not to say that baby boomers or people outside of the 12-25 age group don't count for a lot of the BO receipts, but they just don't drive it anymore.
How many older generation people would go to a see "The King's Speech" at a midnight showing and then go to see it another 5 times after that? That's where I think the discrepancy comes, there's just not enough time to do that while teenagers and perhaps my age group sees this as normal. Also the older you get, the more activities come across as enjoyable that teens don't even think about. For teens, going to the movies or partying are pretty much the two things to do, lol, and maybe going to a sporting event.
Re the quality argument, I completely agree. Though I can see where they're coming from in that look at the success of "Black Swan", I think that comes a lot from the other two elements because it is so different and it piques the interest of people. It's sad because if quality were the highest factor there, then movies like The King's Speech would be outgrossing Tron:Legacy. It's such a rarity but it really should be celebrated that True Grit is beating Little Fockers, even though it has less theaters.
|
|
|
Post by cath112 on Jan 13, 2011 15:08:52 GMT -5
Good point about the demands on our time, though my generation has a lot more time than people starting careers and families. But you're right about repeat viewing. We might see a movie multiple times (the advantage of bad memory -- it's always new, lol) but after once in the theater, it would be Netflix or tv.
|
|
|
Post by narrows101 on Jan 13, 2011 15:10:44 GMT -5
I say give the teens today the $1 a week allowance that I got and see how many times they go to repeat viewings LOL....
Ok, not really, but times have changed since I was a teen...
|
|
|
Post by lucia on Jan 13, 2011 17:23:17 GMT -5
Right now movies tending to teenagers and young adults tend to be the money makers. Harry Potter, Twilight, cartoons, superhero movies so on and on. I would be happy going to movies not in my age group, but I don't connect well with movies made for middle-aged men. While that is very true Cath, you have to realize that you pointed out that you haven't been able to see the movies you've wanted this season for the various reasons you mentioned. I think that's a big reason as to why it's not really your generation that drives BO these days and more so mine. The baby boomers are less likely to go to the cinema as frequent as teeny boppers and 20somethings because they have more responsibilities(family, work, obligations of all sorts) that keep them from going to the cinema as often. Also teens are much more likely to do repeat viewings of the same movie, a lot more so than any older generation. That's not to say that baby boomers or people outside of the 12-25 age group don't count for a lot of the BO receipts, but they just don't drive it anymore. How many older generation people would go to a see "The King's Speech" at a midnight showing and then go to see it another 5 times after that? That's where I think the discrepancy comes, there's just not enough time to do that while teenagers and perhaps my age group sees this as normal. Also the older you get, the more activities come across as enjoyable that teens don't even think about. For teens, going to the movies or partying are pretty much the two things to do, lol, and maybe going to a sporting event. Re the quality argument, I completely agree. Though I can see where they're coming from in that look at the success of "Black Swan", I think that comes a lot from the other two elements because it is so different and it piques the interest of people. It's sad because if quality were the highest factor there, then movies like The King's Speech would be outgrossing Tron:Legacy. It's such a rarity but it really should be celebrated that True Grit is beating Little Fockers, even though it has less theaters.
|
|
|
Post by vivianl on Jan 13, 2011 17:35:16 GMT -5
I can see the argument for innovation and experimentation being a bigger success factor than quality. And by innovation I think they might mean more emphasis on computerisation. Today's digital world is expanding minute by minute, so filmmaking can no longer do without the high-tech stuff. Even Black Swan, which by story demanded no CGI had been peppered with quite a few, so it shows the trend we are in. Had Avatar been made with much lower budget that cut down innovative elements and visuals, and given much more focus on acting, would it have made such mammoth money? Doubtful.
|
|
|
Post by cath112 on Jan 13, 2011 19:35:15 GMT -5
Filmmaking can be done without high-tech stuff, if the story, script, and acting are high quality. Avatar as a story probably couldn't have been told well without the technical wizardry, but that was the nature of the story. Movies that don't deal with fantasy worlds can be done without bells and whistles. Good movies can be made with all kinds of special effects of course; my problem is when all of that flash is used to cover up the lack of quality. And I'm happy to see lo-tech movies do well so that producers can have some confidence that everything doesn't have to go boom to succeed.
|
|