@Lightwizard,
I think you mean Sherlock LOST 38%, which is about the normal for well marketed but not very good movies.
Nine is now officially a major flop.....you will not see an expensive musical for a long time unless Depp decides to do another one, which I highly doubt.
@hawkeye10,
It dropped to 38% of it's opening weekend. The loss would be the difference between 100% and 38% so, 62% of the money it made on the first weekend was not there, an indication it's not getting repeat business combined with a lackluster word-of-mouth. You're right that is good marketing but some buyer's remorse has set in -- people are unwilling to plunk down the $ 8.00 average for a ticket the second time and could have either seen "Avatar" a second time, or even a third. Of course, there's the "Alvin and the Chipmunks" variable which wouldn't necessarily draw either of those two film's audiences. "Alvin" just about matched "Sherlock," and was made for a lot less money. I think they were banking on the star's draw after "Iron Man," got some first weekend boost from that and then it's drained off.
A really good blockbuster would normally only loose 20% to 30% and then only gradually drop down to 50% in the next few weeks before it would reach below 40%
In other words, "Avatar" smashed it like a bug.
@Lightwizard,
Think you are reading it wrong. It dropped by 38% and made 62% of it's previous week.
I just saw SH. Not a horrible movie. Better plot and more involving than Avatar. Obviously not nearly as engaging visually.
I won't pay to see it again, but no worse than Avatar in my view.
@Lightwizard,
Quote:A really good blockbuster would normally only loose 20% to 30% and then only gradually drop down to 50% in the next few weeks before it would reach below 40%
A really good movie will drop 1-15% in week two, but most of what Hollywood is making is not that great. The marketing people will blow out all the stops to get people to see it opening week-end before the negative buzz convinces people not to go. A crappy major movie will have a marketing budget of up to 40% of the production costs to make sure that opening weekend is good, then will drop 50-60% in the second week as word gets out that the movie is crap.
Quote:"Avatar," the 3-D epic, topped them all, earning $75 million for 20th Century Fox, according to studio estimates Sunday. Remarkably, that was only a 3 percent drop from its opening weekend total of $77.4 million. (Blockbusters typically drop 30-50 percent in the second weekend.) In its 10 days of release, "Avatar" has made $212 million domestically - and could be on its way to a worldwide gross of over $1 billion
Obviously bad reviews in the press would get in the way of this plan, but Hollywood has answer! They simply refuse to allow screenings of the movie up till opening day. The earliest that the bad review will get posted is Sat, too late to get in the way of the marketing machine. Smart shoppers stay away from movies where this game has been play, as they are almost always a waste of time and money.
@maporsche,
You're right -- usually the figure given is what percent of the box office a film took in a second weekend and their figure is the loss (in minus red). Writing too fast! So that's a 62% retention of audience which is not bad. Bad would be 38% ticket sales in dollars from the previous weekend, which would have been in $ 20 M range.
I should have taken the time to see it was now in international release so:
TOTAL LIFETIME GROSSES
Domestic: $140,675,000 61.4%
+ Foreign: $88,300,000 38.6%
= Worldwide: $228,975,000
At the point of beginning to make money on it's budget investment. Guy Ritchie should be happy.
@Lightwizard,
Quote:
At the point of beginning to make money on it's budget investment. Guy Ritchie should be happy.
Guy Richie made a profitable film
When did we move over to the opposite parallel universe, and why did no one inform me?
@hawkeye10,
Was he being daunted married to Madonna? Seems like it. He will always go down in film history for his decade making "Swept Away," easily one of the worst movies ever made and, for some, the worst of the decade. Well, there was "Gigli," and a few others I wish to forget. He does need redemption and should thank the producers for giving him the opportunity. It could spell out a sequel, as there was, I understand, one built into the ending.
@Lightwizard,
Yes, they did set it up for a sequel, pretty obviously.
Quote:I saw James Cameron’s “Avatar” with an audience that watched the screen with the kind of fixed attention that has become rare at the movies. True, everyone was wearing 3-D glasses, which makes it difficult to check your cellphone obsessively, but they also seemed captivated.
When it was over, people broke into enthusiastic applause and, unusually, many stayed to watch the credits, as if to linger in the movie. Although much has been made of the technologies used in “Avatar,” its beauty and nominal politics, it is the social experience of the movie " as an event that needs to be enjoyed with other people for maximum impact " which is more interesting. That’s particularly true after a decade when watching movies became an increasingly solitary affair, something between you and your laptop. “Avatar” affirms the deep pleasures of the communal, and it does so by exploiting a technology (3-D), which appears to invite you into the movie even as it also forces you to remain attentively in your seat.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/movies/03dargis.html
A point that has been missed up till now, except to call this part of the appeal of Avatar "hype" as an attempt to put it down.
We got applause after the screening of "Avatar," and I did notice an inordinate number of people sitting watching the credits. Reporting on the box office on the Today Shows, Matt Lauer said his son had so see it twice and one of the producers had seen it three times. This is why it's up there in the record of only the 4th film which has broken the $ 1 billion box office. The more expensive IMAX tickets likely helped and I wish they'd also report movie attendance by actual number of ticket buyers, as the price of a ticket varies from senior, matinee, evening tickets.
Box office champs, adjusted for inflation:
1 Gone with the Wind MGM 202,044,600 $198,676,459 1939^
2 Star Wars Fox 178,119,600 $460,998,007 1977^
3 The Sound of Music Fox 142,415,400 $158,671,368 1965
4 E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial Uni. 141,854,300 $435,110,554 1982^
5 The Ten Commandments Par. 131,000,000 $65,500,000 1956
6 Titanic Par. 128,345,900 $600,788,188 1997
7 Jaws Uni. 128,078,800 $260,000,000 1975
8 Doctor Zhivago MGM 124,135,500 $111,721,910 1965
9 The Exorcist WB 110,568,700 $232,671,011 1973^
10 Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs Dis. 109,000,000 $184,925,486 1937^
Quote:Avatar has passed the $US1.12 billion tally of The Lord Of The Rings: The Return Of The King to become the second-highest worldwide grosser ever.
James Cameron's sci-fi epic had earned $US1.14 billion as of Wednesday (US time) and now trails only Titanic with worldwide sales of $US1.84 billion in 1997-1998.
International fans are driving Avatar sales, contributing $US760.8 million of the total.
In North America, the total stands at $374.4 million
http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/entertainment/6655386/avatar-2nd-alltime-box-office-earner/
OK, that was fast. Given the trajectory of the box office numbers there is no way this fails to become the all time highest grossing movie. Not sure if it will be the all time winner in inflation normed dollars though.
@hawkeye10,
It could surpass Cameron's own "Titanic" which would be a feat. Of course, that's not a head count -- if you refer to Box Office Mojo's "adjusted for inflation" standings, they are quite different. From "Titanic" until now, I'm sure it's at least a $ 2.00 increase in ticket prices which would be $ 5.00 in the IMAX theaters.
@Lightwizard,
"could"? It only opened in China yesterday, and it is still banging everywhere. I dont see any way that it fails to reach 1.9 billion global. It will play for years off and on in Imax, much like the polar bear express does.....it all counts.
@hawkeye10,
It will be re-released to IMAX theaters before the sequel, as all the LOTR movies were on conventional screens, depending on how far Cameron is in a new production. They are going to have more than enough older and newer films in the IMAX process -- the digitally restored "2001: A Space Odyssey" which was recently released on Blu-Ray BD disc has also been processed by IMAX into a digital image. The original Cinerama Super Panavision print show in theaters like the Hollywood Cinedome is close to the same ratio and focused curve as the IMAX screens. Too bad the IMAX camera was in its baby stages and could only shoot 10 to 20 minute on one reel. I understand that "Blade Runner" and "Dark City" are in the IMAX labs. Both BD discs of those films are recent and the resolution is excellent, although they can give the conventional film even more clarity in full digital.
I'm seeing it tomorrow night with a friend who hasn't, again at the IMAX theater across from Disneyland. He also wanted to take in the park but I figured that had the markings of an exhausting experience with dinner inbetween! I'd have to get a B12 shot!
I just saw Daybreakers. It was a waste of time. Interesting premise, but the story lacked drama.
I watched it again today in IMAX. THe showing was 90%+ sold out, which considering the start time of 330 was impressive. I noticed a lot of middle aged people who were obviously seeing it for the first time. It has certainly become a "must do" event in the culture.
@hawkeye10,
Last night -- a line at Garden Walk IMAX theater which was a reminder of Star Wars, a really quite glib little intro by the theater manager with a warning there are no previews of the second or third part of Avatar in the ending credits (a false rumor that's been circulating) and only one row of empty seats -- the front row, where it's impossible to really appreciate the film. I sat at the back row of the first tier, quite a bit closer than before and nearly a 100% peripheral image. I really did prefer about a third of the way up in the second tier, although you couldn't say it didn't put you into the picture! The banshee flying scenes were more like I was on top of one of the creatures soaring just behind the characters. One thing I really did notice was the colors were a lot more muted and realistic than the previews.
"Avatar" is expected to easily pass up "Titanic" this weekend as the biggest box office champ of all time.
@Lightwizard,
When they put Avatar onto DVD (or BluRay or whatever), will they release it in 3D with Red/Green glasses, or will they release it in 3D with some type of polarized glasses? I don't like the red/green gimmick.
@rosborne979,
The oncoming 3-D technology they showed off at the Las Vegas Consumer Electronics Show was viewable either with Poloroid glasses or through a system of angled vertical lenses similar to a Fresnel. The latter you would have to adjust your viewing position to the proper viewing angle and that cannot be too far off the perpendicular of the screen surface. I'm thinking that's even more inconvenient than the glasses (I had no problem with the glasses worn over my glasses at the "Avatar" screening). The red/green imaging just slightly works and is more irritating than entertaining. Blu-Ray 1080P (progressive scanning) is capable of either. I don't see enough hardware getting into consumer's hands to begin releasing the DVD's for another three of four years.
