A future of Box Office Bombs?

[Brian Drysdale]

A film also has to make back it's marketing budget. You should remember that this is the box office, many things come out of that before the funds are allocated to the recuperating the production cost of the film. You also may find that the film's star is getting a share of the gross profit.

[Brian Drysdale]

Here's an article on the global box office. http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2012/may/08/global-box-office-breakdowns-international

[Guest]

Also, keep in mind all those box office numbers reported are the gross amounts. If a movie brings in 100 million at the box office, the studio does not get 100 million. The theatre chain takes a cut of that revenue based on whatever deal they struck with the studio for that particular film. The numbers usually start high the first week in favour of the studio, then the percentage shifts in favour of the theatre chain the longer the movie stays in the theatres.

 

No matter how you slice it.....tough tough game to play.

 

R,

[James Steven Beverly]

Naw, it's a piece of cake!! B)

[George Ebersole]

It's like an executive producer I knew when I was first starting said to me; "See that gross, George? They're telling you how much money they lost."

 

Eh, well, maybe. The returns on a project isn't like a stock splitting. It is a venture, and specifically a business venture, and if you know anything about business, no business makes back any money in the first year of being open, including lemonade stands.

 

I don't know the details about Pacific Rim. I'll try and catch a performance some time this week. But overall films, if the property is managed well, will make a return eventually. But that doesn't mean it'll make it quickly, or that a lot of people will discover a hidden gem in the future, and that it'll pay off later on, but at some point the film goes in the black. A bomb is when a film is just piss poor, makes money, but people lose interest in it, and its long term return is a trickle as opposed to a steady flow from rentals and video purchases.

[James Steven Beverly]

Yeah, exactly. "course waiting 10 years to get your money back is probably not your first choice, but like William Goldman:

 

 

once said: "Nobody knows anything!" GREAT video BTW,!!

[Pat Murray]

Where do you guys draw the line at calling a film a 'bomb'? How much more must it make then its production budget?

 

Pacific Rim was #1 internationally and has already made over $180 million - surely it will make it's money back and then some in the end?

 

If you look at box office mojo's list of recent sci fi flops they all made their budget back and more.

 

Do international returns not count?

 

Matthew beat me to it. Pacific Rim is not a bomb by any stretch of the imagination. According to Wikidpedia it was made for 190 million and it's still early days for the film. If you go to Rotten Tomotoes and other sites there is an over 70% rating from critics and over 80% rating from viewers so it will probably do well over the long run thanks to positive word of mouth.

 

When it comes to movies in the 200 million range I think you have to distinguish between losing money and bomb. Gigli, made for $75 million brought in 7 million. That's what I call a bomb.

 

I think the question we should ask isn't 'is the blockbuster movie dead?' or are 'audiences interested in these type of movies'? It should be, are studios spending too much on tent pole pictures? Here's an interesting article comparing Disney to Universal.

 

http://gointothestory.blcklst.com/2013/07/a-tale-of-two-studios.html

[Phil Rhodes]

 

 

Alex Cox... Repo Man

 

Repo Chick now available on iPlayer for those of us in the UK!

 

It is terrible, but in a highly amusing way.

 

P

[George Ebersole]

Well, I just saw a minute long trailer on Youtube for a Clooney-Bullock pic called "Gravity". It looks like another B-movie on the horizon. Just looking at the orbiter-orbital meteor storm sequence has tent-pole written all over it. Kubrick's 2001 it ain't. I would have directed that segment differently.

[John Holland]

Bit early to judge a film on a short trailer on a computer dont you think ?

[Brian Drysdale]

I don't think you'll get 2001 these days, the silence of space sort of deadens all those big bangs.

[George Ebersole]

Bit early to judge a film on a short trailer on a computer dont you think ?

 

Maybe. Then again a trailer is supposed to wet your appetite for a film, and this one didn't do the job.

[Freya Black]

 

Repo Chick now available on iPlayer for those of us in the UK!

 

It is terrible, but in a highly amusing way.

 

P

 

Must force myself to watch it!

I put it on for a minute a couple of days ago and got the impression it was going to be quite a weird journey to watch it.

Looked kinda strange from the get go but oddly interesting too.

 

Will have to see. It got terrible reviews when it came out!

 

Freya

[James Steven Beverly]

Yeah, but Repo Man was quite a weird journey to watch!!! LOVED IT though! :D

Edited July 25, 2013 by James Steven Beverly

[George Ebersole]

Where do you guys draw the line at calling a film a 'bomb'? How much more must it make then its production budget?

 

Pacific Rim was #1 internationally and has already made over $180 million - surely it will make it's money back and then some in the end?

 

If you look at box office mojo's list of recent sci fi flops they all made their budget back and more.

 

Do international returns not count?

 

I've been wanting to respond to this, but have been quietly thinking about a reply.

 

Pretty much any film that doesn't keep interest over the long haul. I have a hard time thinking that any parent now will DL the super-def version of "Transformers" and watch it with his grandchildren. But hey, I could be wrong there.

 

People like trends, even if they're dumb or unhealthy, but since everyone else is doing it, they'll latch onto it. that's kind of how movies make their way. Good movies will tap into shared emotions evoked by common experience. Really good ones make people want to experience that over and over again to the point where they'll add the film to their collection.

 

A bomb is either a film that fails to do that, or a film that briefly has flourishing moments, but ultimately the story just doesn't work for the audience. Either way both films see a lack of interest, and they fall off the radar. And that means little to no return on whatever went into making the project.

[James Steven Beverly]

Well, here's the thing about a "Bomb", generally speaking, a bomb, bombs at the Box Office IE under preforms significantly during it's initial U.S, theatrical release which can, but surprisingly not always, effects foreign theatrical Box Office. HOWEVER, there are films that are deemed "bombs" that make ENORMOUS amounts of money and become iconic. The one that comes IMMEDIATELY is "Scarface" (1983). The film was BRUTALLY panned by critics and COMPLETELY IGNORED at the box office. It wasn't until VHS sales kicked in that the film went ballistic. The insane part was that it never stopped. TODAY the film is still selling. Every rapper in the world has the movie poster in his crib. "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" (1975) (a GREAT year for movies!!) is another. The movie was also panned and ignored at the box office in it's initial theatrical release but garnered an almost mythical cult status following on the midnight movie circuits were it made a fortune. There are a LOT more examples but you get my point, "Bomb" is a way to sensationalize an otherwise boring story about a film not making as much money up front as was projected.

[Brian Drysdale]

"Blade Runner" is another influential film that bombed.

[James Steven Beverly]

Indeed, today considered an ICONIC MASTERPIECE as it well should be, but then again, I'm a little prejudiced as I'm a HUGE Ridley Scott fan and actually haven't seen a film of his I DON'T like. I think some of these films are like Van Gogh's paintings, masterworks that were unappreciated in their time because they're so ahead of their time.

[George Ebersole]

There have only been two websites I've gone to for movie reviews: Roger Ebert's website, and Spill.com. And On Spill.com's daily podcast, "The Daily Spill", the host and founder of the website, Korey Coleman, talked about how a lot of films at this time of year are "canabalizing" each other because a lot of them are being released on the same week or day and don't give each other enough room. And he suggested that more films like Pacific Rim that have niche audiences try to aim for releases somewhere else in the year like January.

 

Jan-Feb is where you put rejects; films that the studios think are half baked, uneven or lack potential draw. I don't know Coleman's background, but this is fairly common knowledge among studios and distributors alike. I think the market reasoning is that most people, read that as non-die-hard movie goers, are just exhausted of seeing the big releases over Thanksgiving and Christmas.

 

Having said that, I think there have been some films to bust that trend, but again titles are failing me.

[George Ebersole]

"Blade Runner" is another influential film that bombed.

 

Blade Runners take in summer of 82;

 

$26,168,988 (USA) (22 August 1982)

$25,832,755 (USA) (15 August 1982)

$25,347,916 (USA) (8 August 1982)

$24,600,832 (USA) (1 August 1982)

$23,443,381 (USA) (25 July 1982)

$21,774,216 (USA) (18 July 1982)

$19,002,404 (USA) (11 July 1982)

$14,866,486 (USA) (5 July 1982)

$6,150,002 (USA) (27 June 1982)

$27,580,111 (USA) ( 1982)

 

It doesn't appear to be a bomb.

[Nicolas Courdouan]

But its budget was estimated to be around $ 28,000,000 (not sure that's even including the marketing), and from that total gross, you have to subtract the part that goes to the movie theaters that screened it.

Edited July 25, 2013 by Nicolas Courdouan

[George Ebersole]

If its negative cost was 28mil, then it made that back by mid July of 1982 (in theory, not taking into account exhibitor's take). The film appears to have paid for itself.

[Freya Black]

 

Blade Runners take in summer of 82;

 

$26,168,988 (USA) (22 August 1982)

$25,832,755 (USA) (15 August 1982)

$25,347,916 (USA) (8 August 1982)

$24,600,832 (USA) (1 August 1982)

$23,443,381 (USA) (25 July 1982)

$21,774,216 (USA) (18 July 1982)

$19,002,404 (USA) (11 July 1982)

$14,866,486 (USA) (5 July 1982)

$6,150,002 (USA) (27 June 1982)

$27,580,111 (USA) ( 1982)

 

It doesn't appear to be a bomb.

 

That's really interesting! Films are generally judged on their opening weekend as there tends to be a big drop off after that. Blade runner did badly on its opening weekend but oddly seems to have managed to maintain at its initial level for weeks and weeks and weeks. I never see that happen with films. What tends to happen these days is as soon as a film starts doing badly it tends to loose theatres. Occasionally films do bounce back and get more theatres added back on but Blade Runner seems to have been fairly consistent over a long period of time. I'm guessing the film had really good word of mouth. It was critically panned at the time, but of course that isn't the same as box office.

 

I've not seen figures like that before! Fascinating! :)

 

Freya

[Brian Drysdale]

At the time "Blade Runners" box office was regarded as poor. You can find it discussed in more detail in "Future Noir" It was up against ET that summer.

 

Are you sure those figures aren't the rolling total, rather the box office in a particular week?

[Nicolas Courdouan]

I'm not familiar with the US distribution system, but a quick Google search taught me that an American theater claims between 20 - 25% of a film's gross on the 1st week, 45 - 55% on weeks 2 and 3, and 80% and above from week 4 onwards.

 

Now, assuming these numbers are correct and assuming they were relevant at the time, Blade Runner only made a little under $13,500,000 during its initial run (I did the maths using the numbers you gave).

 

Of course, I only did this out of curiosity, and... for fun basically (I get really bored at work). They're not meant to prove anything, but I'm sure they give us a bit of insight as to how much the studio actually made back during the initial run, and yeah it's pretty far from the estimated $28,000,000 budget (assuming this figure is also correct).

 

Anyway, now I understand why opening weekends are such a big deal for the studios and why nowadays films usually disappear after 3 or 4 weeks. No point in the studios renting theaters any longer when they practically make no money out of their movies after the third week...

 

Edit:

 

Are you sure those figures aren't the rolling total, rather the box office in a particular week?

 

They are the rolling total.

Edited July 25, 2013 by Nicolas Courdouan