|
Post by amsiraK on May 21, 2006 15:50:23 GMT -5
Whoever is saying that $4 million and counting for an opening weekend sucks, please keep this in mind. 90% of Hollywood films do not reach budget. See No Evil is half way there in two days. Granted, its budget was only $8, it still is an impressive feat to consider. -Ian Exactly, if this movie makes its budget back (and there's a fair chance it will since its only opening weekend, and there are still dvd sales to consider), then its considered a success....anything over the budget is gravy. Actually, I think it's supposed to be 2x over, then everything is profit. I did learn this somewhere... damned if I could tell you where. And 4 mil ain't nothin' to sneeze at for a slasher movie starring a wrestler that the non-wrestling movie-going public doesn't recognize.
|
|
|
Post by Virt McGirt on May 21, 2006 16:00:09 GMT -5
and how much did it take to make/promote? To make, about 8 million according to IMDB.com, to promote, I don't know Anyway It made $4 Million? Man, perhaps they gave up on the XFL too soon. Semper Fi, Erik Majorwitz Speaking of which: - The Simpsons referenced the XFL folding in one episode. In the gag, Homer was seated on the couch wearing XFL merchandise, holding a miniature XFL flag, saying "I can't wait for the new season of the XFL. Who will win this year's Million Dollar game?" prompting Marge to tell him that the league had folded. When asked how she knew, she said it was because the janitor at her hair salon told her, seeing that he was the MVP of the last season.
Credit: XFL Trivia @ Wikipediahehehe, SimpsOWNED!
|
|
wcwite
Samurai Cop
Posts: 2,157
|
Post by wcwite on May 21, 2006 16:41:21 GMT -5
USA Weekend Box-Office Summary
19 May 2006 (Sunday Estimates)
Rank Title Weekend Gross
1. The Da Vinci Code (2006) $77M $77M 2. Over the Hedge (2006) $37.2M $37.2M 3. Mission: Impossible III (2006) $11M $103M 4. Poseidon (2006) $9.2M $36.8M 5. R.V. (2006) $5.1M $50.4M 6. See No Evil (2006) $4.35M $4.35M 7. Just My Luck (2006) $3.38M $10.5M 8. An American Haunting (2005) $1.66M $13.6M 9. United 93 (2006) $1.4M $28.3M 10. Akeelah and the Bee (2006) $1M $15.7M
'Da Vinci' Almighty by Brandon Gray May 21, 2006
Mona Lisa's smiling at the vast millions 'Da Vinci' Almighty reaped out of the gate as the publishing phenomenon translated into a theatrical blockbuster.
The Da Vinci Code divined an estimated $77 million from 3,735 locations, the second biggest opening weekend ever among adult-geared pictures behind The Passion of the Christ and 13th overall. Sony's $125 million adaptation of the Dan Brown novel that reportedly sold nearly 60 million copies worldwide handily marked personal best debuts for director Ron Howard and star Tom Hanks.
On the global front, The Da Vinci Code played nearly everywhere and claimed the highest-grossing foreign start in history, raking in $147 million since Wednesday to narrowly surpass Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith's $145.5 million from the same period last year.
"It's an amazing number," said Rory Bruer, Sony's president of domestic distribution. "Certainly with a property like The Da Vinci Code, you feel like you're in a really good place right from the get-go. When you look at films that have an adult appeal, anything over $50 million has always been an amazing opening. We had always expected it to be in the $60 million range."
Sony's exit polling indicated that 53 percent of the audience was under 30 years old and 52 percent was female. Nearly half of moviegoers had not read the book.
Controversy arose over Da Vinci Code's claims about the foundation of Christianity, though the Code crew stressed that it was a work of fiction meant for entertainment. The book's fervent popularity meant that Sony could sit back while the clamoring of fans and protesters did much of the publicity work—condemnation from the Vatican and other religious groups only played into Code's mystique—and the movie's critical flagellation simply demonstrated how reviews aren't the primary determinant in what people see.
The Da Vinci Code boils down to a conventional mystery given heft by its religious and historical subject matter, incorporating elements that worked for National Treasure and the Indiana Jones movies. Adult-appealing thrillers, though, rarely are positioned as event pictures—the popular ones open above $20 million and then show longevity—and few historical antecedents exist to illuminate Code aside from The Firm and Hannibal, two bestseller adaptations that had enormous openings in their day.
The box office expanded to accommodate another major release, Paramount and DreamWorks Animation's counter-programmer Over the Hedge . The critter comedy scrounged up an estimated $37.2 million at 4,059 sites, almost matching the opening weekend average for all previous computer-animated features.
With a glut of similar celebrity-voiced animal pictures, including DreamWorks' own Madagascar from last May, computer animation's event status is no longer automatic. Over the Hedge wasn't distinguishable enough to break-out initially, but it is well-positioned with the family-fueled Memorial Day weekend ahead—Paramount's research suggested that the audience was 80 percent family, a high concentration by genre standards in line with Chicken Little's debut.
"The opening was very solid, well within what we were looking for," said Paramount's executive vice president and general sales manager, Don Harris. "No one ever thought this movie was Shrek. With family movies, we generally try to be on the weekend before Memorial Day. It sets them up to play very well on Memorial and into the beginning of the summer. I think our movie will stand up against [the upcoming] Cars very well."
Combined, The Da Vinci Code and Over the Hedge pulled in $114.2 million, compared to Revenge of the Sith's $108.4 million on the same weekend in 2005. Overall business was on par with last year.
Also opening, a non-descript horror movie from Lionsgate and World Wrestling Entertainment, See No Evil , which wrung a wimpy estimated $4.4 million out of 1,257 venues.
|
|
Dean-o
Grimlock
Haha we're having fun Maggle!
Posts: 13,865
|
Post by Dean-o on May 21, 2006 16:50:00 GMT -5
Whoever is saying that $4 million and counting for an opening weekend sucks, please keep this in mind. 90% of Hollywood films do not reach budget. See No Evil is half way there in two days. Granted, its budget was only $8, it still is an impressive feat to consider. -Ian Where did you pull that 90% figure from? That is ricduliously high, even with the low box office returns of today. The fact that you're saying that 9 out of 10 movies don't make a profit in the theatres anymore deserves a
|
|
|
Post by romafan87 on May 21, 2006 17:48:24 GMT -5
Whoever is saying that $4 million and counting for an opening weekend sucks, please keep this in mind. 90% of Hollywood films do not reach budget. See No Evil is half way there in two days. Granted, its budget was only $8, it still is an impressive feat to consider. -Ian Where did you pull that 90% figure from? That is ricduliously high, even with the low box office returns of today. The fact that you're saying that 9 out of 10 movies don't make a profit in the theatres anymore deserves a I'm a communications major at NYU; I study film and media numbers. The source comes from a lecture from Ted Magder, author of "Toronto: Canada's Hollywood", among other novels, who is the head of the communications department at NYU. It can also be found in his supplimental reading packet which is a collection of articles that can be purchased at the NYU Copy Centre. I'll dig mine out to give you an exact citation if you'd like. Any other questions? -Ian
|
|
|
Post by tardis99 on May 21, 2006 17:52:13 GMT -5
I think a movies success should be measured by how much it cost to make. Movies like Da Vinci Code, Titanic, King Kong, Harry Potter et al are always going to beat the rest at the box office. However if WWE make a clear $30m profit from the movie then it's got to be considered a great success.
|
|
|
Post by slik81 on May 21, 2006 17:54:07 GMT -5
If they would just calm down on the budgets and effects more than 9 out of 10 movies would make their budget back.
There's a reason SAW was the most profitable movie of the year a few years ago--it didn't cost $200 million to produce and market.
50% of your estimated cost is pretty decent for a film to do during it's opening weekend. Especially considering the majority of the marketing for the project was done on WWE tv, which really helped alleviate many marketing fees.
|
|
|
Post by amsiraK on May 21, 2006 17:58:53 GMT -5
Where did you pull that 90% figure from? That is ricduliously high, even with the low box office returns of today. The fact that you're saying that 9 out of 10 movies don't make a profit in the theatres anymore deserves a I'm a communications major at NYU; I study film and media numbers. The source comes from a lecture from Ted Magder, author of "Toronto: Canada's Hollywood", among other novels, who is the head of the communications department at NYU. It can also be found in his supplimental reading packet which is a collection of articles that can be purchased at the NYU Copy Centre. I'll dig mine out to give you an exact citation if you'd like. Any other questions? -Ian Listen to him. I was a comm. major and it's the truth. Films have to double or triple their cost to make a profit. (I can never remember if they have to do two or three times their production cost... I said 2x before, but it could be 3.) And very few do that, considering how much money gets dumped into movies. Blair Witch Project made out like a bandit because their cost was so low.
|
|
|
Post by romafan87 on May 21, 2006 18:07:06 GMT -5
I'm a communications major at NYU; I study film and media numbers. The source comes from a lecture from Ted Magder, author of "Toronto: Canada's Hollywood", among other novels, who is the head of the communications department at NYU. It can also be found in his supplimental reading packet which is a collection of articles that can be purchased at the NYU Copy Centre. I'll dig mine out to give you an exact citation if you'd like. Any other questions? -Ian Listen to him. I was a comm. major and it's the truth. Films have to double or triple their cost to make a profit. (I can never remember if they have to do two or three times their production cost... I said 2x before, but it could be 3.) And very few do that, considering how much money gets dumped into movies. Blair Witch Project made out like a bandit because their cost was so low. Thanks Karisma, I knew I learned something this freshman year.
|
|
|
Post by Rorschach on May 21, 2006 19:09:11 GMT -5
LOL at the guy who rolled his eyes at the 90% quote........and I wonder why he found that number so hard to believe.
I mean, I'm surprised that ANY movies make thier budget back, what with stars salaries, production costs, marketing ect.
I read a fascinating article on how studios are thinking of cutting costs in last week's Entertainment Weekly. Their actually thinking of implementing a "Pay-upon-performance" rule that states a star gets their salary ONLY after the film recoups it's budget.
|
|
|
Post by Confused Mark Wahlberg on May 21, 2006 19:26:30 GMT -5
Lindsey Ho-han needs to go do something else.
|
|