Plain Old Tele Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 Who's been trying to make her the "it" girl? I don't really get that at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Futurist Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 Sony's doing fine. Here are their 2013 releases so far: The Call - 51m WW, 13m budget (profitable theatrically) Evil Dead - 97m WW, 17m budget (profitable theatrically) After Earth - 243m WW, 130m budget (slight loss theatrically) TITE - 97m WW, 32m budget (profitable theatrically) White House Down - 131m WW, 150m budget (big loss theatrically) Grown Ups 2 - 172m WW (to date), 80m budget (profitable theatrically) Smurfs 2 - 205m WW (to date), 105m budget (will be profitable theatrically) Elysium - 98m WW (to date), 115m acquisition budget (will probably break even theatrically) As i said earlier you can be profitable by winning one dollar. Trust me sony exucutives aren t in this for the cheap money they re gonna make this summer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wally Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 Anyway, people say this movie could do well on China, Germany and Latin America... If that's true and it manages to get a 35-40M DOM, I don't think it's impossible to get 100M WW, which wouldn't be good but wouldn't be horrible either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitik Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 from BOM: TD YD Title (Click to View) Studio Daily Gross % +/- YD / LW Theaters / Avg Gross To-Date Day 1 - The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones SGem $3,006,254 - - 3,046 $987 $3,006,254 1 2 1 Lee Daniels' The Butler Wein. $2,414,855 -21% - 2,933 $823 $32,810,979 6 3 2 We're the Millers WB $1,929,877 -22% -39% 3,325 $580 $76,261,882 15 4 3 Elysium TriS $1,273,459 -31% -53% 3,284 $388 $60,691,298 13 5 4 Planes BV $1,224,266 -24% -43% 3,716 $329 $49,580,473 13 6 5 Kick-Ass 2 Uni. $983,430 -37% - 2,940 $335 $17,256,360 6 7 6 Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters Fox $785,529 -36% -50% 2,872 $274 $42,298,123 15 8 8 2 Guns Uni. $564,650 -28% -51% 2,210 $255 $61,441,670 20 9 7 The Smurfs 2 Sony $558,417 -36% -58% 2,114 $264 $59,129,553 22 10 9 Jobs ORF $532,764 -24% - 2,381 $224 $8,610,276 6 11 10 The Wolverine Fox $436,694 -33% -52% 1,715 $255 $122,175,650 27 12 11 Despicable Me 2 Uni. $415,205 -29% -52% 1,564 $265 $347,639,040 50 13 12 The Conjuring WB $403,034 -23% -47% 2,001 $201 $129,247,389 34 14 13 Paranoia Rela. $297,905 -34% - 2,459 $121 $4,640,200 6 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Old Tele Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 As i said earlier you can be profitable by winning one dollar.Trust me sony exucutives aren t in this for the cheap money they re gonna make this summer. It's a lot better than bleeding money all summer, not to mention they're coming off a year with SKYFALL, HOTEL TRANSYLVANIA, ZERO DARK THIRTY, TASM, MIB3... Not the most glamorous, nor the hugest grosses, but solid enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Marston Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 will Smurfs 3 still be made after dropping so much from the first? It will make money no doubt but the next one should cost even more and make even less Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitik Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 theater counts from BOM: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/counts/chart/?yr=2013&wk=34&p=.htm Mortal Instruments - 3118 Worlds End - 1548 Were The Millers - 3445 (+120) Butler - 3110 (+177) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcneil039 Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 (edited) Sony's doing fine. Here are their 2013 releases so far: The Call - 51m WW, 13m budget (profitable theatrically) Evil Dead - 97m WW, 17m budget (profitable theatrically) After Earth - 243m WW, 130m budget (slight loss theatrically) TITE - 97m WW, 32m budget (profitable theatrically) White House Down - 131m WW, 150m budget (big loss theatrically) Grown Ups 2 - 172m WW (to date), 80m budget (profitable theatrically) Smurfs 2 - 205m WW (to date), 105m budget (will be profitable theatrically) Elysium - 98m WW (to date), 115m acquisition budget (will probably break even theatrically) You're not including marketing costs which be just as much as the production budget for some movies so saying After Earth is only a 'slight loss' theatrically is a bit optimistic here, even though we don't know exactly how much Sony spent on marketing AE and other films worldwide it's bound to be at least 60-70m for AE and that would more than make up the difference between a 'slight loss' and a big one. Edited August 22, 2013 by DespicableMEnions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baumer Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 No, but two of the examples you used weren’t very good, since those movies weren’t even promoted with Smith or Bullock’s names. Hemsworth wasn't promoted as a draw. He was shown as being the guy in the movie. He's done absolutely nothing to make anyone think he would be a draw. And why would a thriller about the 1%ers be a film that Hemsworth's target audience, teenage girls, are going to rush out and see? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wally Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 from BOM: TD YD Title (Click to View) Studio Daily Gross % +/- YD / LW Theaters / Avg Gross To-Date Day 1 - The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones SGem $3,006,254 - - 3,046 $987 $3,006,254 1 2 1 Lee Daniels' The Butler Wein. $2,414,855 -21% - 2,933 $823 $32,810,979 6 3 2 We're the Millers WB $1,929,877 -22% -39% 3,325 $580 $76,261,882 15 4 3 Elysium TriS $1,273,459 -31% -53% 3,284 $388 $60,691,298 13 5 4 Planes BV $1,224,266 -24% -43% 3,716 $329 $49,580,473 13 6 5 Kick-Ass 2 Uni. $983,430 -37% - 2,940 $335 $17,256,360 6 7 6 Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters Fox $785,529 -36% -50% 2,872 $274 $42,298,123 15 8 8 2 Guns Uni. $564,650 -28% -51% 2,210 $255 $61,441,670 20 9 7 The Smurfs 2 Sony $558,417 -36% -58% 2,114 $264 $59,129,553 22 10 9 Jobs ORF $532,764 -24% - 2,381 $224 $8,610,276 6 11 10 The Wolverine Fox $436,694 -33% -52% 1,715 $255 $122,175,650 27 12 11 Despicable Me 2 Uni. $415,205 -29% -52% 1,564 $265 $347,639,040 50 13 12 The Conjuring WB $403,034 -23% -47% 2,001 $201 $129,247,389 34 14 13 Paranoia Rela. $297,905 -34% - 2,459 $121 $4,640,200 6 Indeed quite horrible. I think this is on track for doing 10-12M on OW, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Old Tele Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 You're not including marketing costs which be just as much as the production budget for some movies so After Earth is only a 'slight loss' is a bit optimistic here, even if we don't know exactly how much Sony spent on marketing AE worldwide it's bound to be at least 60-70m and that would more than make the difference between a 'slight loss' and a big one. I love how people always bring up marketing costs when wanting to call a movie a disappointment. First of all, marketing budgets are really hard to get any sort of solid numbers on. Secondly, I'm ignoring all the ancillary grosses of VOD/PPV/home video/premium/network/cable TV, etc. If a movie recoups 2x its production budget, that's traditionally the indicator of it being a success, and I see no reason to change that general formula. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dashrendar44 Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 Who's been trying to make her the "it" girl? I don't really get that at all. No love for Mirror, Mirror... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Impact Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 To be fair-quite a bit of schools have started so its target audience was in school. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fancyarcher Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 (edited) Hemsworth wasn't promoted as a draw. He was shown as being the guy in the movie. He's done absolutely nothing to make anyone think he would be a draw. And why would a thriller about the 1%ers be a film that Hemsworth's target audience, teenage girls, are going to rush out and see? His name is front and center on the poster, top billed.Doesn’t matter what he kind of movie he makes; ladies should be seeing his movies regardless. It’s the same excuse that people use when Ryan Reynolds' movies fail when he’s not paired up with a popular co-star. Edited August 22, 2013 by Boxofficefanatic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baumer Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 I love how people always bring up marketing costs when wanting to call a movie a disappointment. First of all, marketing budgets are really hard to get any sort of solid numbers on. Secondly, I'm ignoring all the ancillary grosses of VOD/PPV/home video/premium/network/cable TV, etc. If a movie recoups 2x its production budget, that's traditionally the indicator of it being a success, and I see no reason to change that general formula. Until we actually know what they spend on marketing, we can't add the marketing budget to the cost. Because, as you said, we simply don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baumer Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 His name is front and center on the poster, top billed.Doesn’t matter what he kind of movie he makes; ladies should be seeing his movies regardless. It’s the same excuse that people use when referring to why Ryan Reynolds fail when he’s not paired up with a popular co-star. There's so much wrong with this statement and I don't have the time to put you in your place. But one small example for you. Bill Murray: The Razor's Edge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cairo Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 Who's been trying to make her the "it" girl? I don't really get that at all. Lily Collins has been a fixture in women's magazines for years now, thanks to having a famous father. She's also been in the VF's Young Hollywood cover, been claimed as the leader of Hollywood's next leading ladies, and one magazine even said MI would do to her what Twilight did for Stewart and Hunger Games for Lawrence. When that kind of narrative is being pushed before you have done anything to deserve it, then yes, industry is trying to make her an it-girl. Hemsworth wasn't promoted as a draw. He was shown as being the guy in the movie. He's done absolutely nothing to make anyone think he would be a draw. And why would a thriller about the 1%ers be a film that Hemsworth's target audience, teenage girls, are going to rush out and see? Why to give him the lead role then instead of someone more talented if he doesn't have any draw power and can't impress the audience? Hollywood is reluctant to give starring roles for women and POCs since they don't supposedly draw audience to cinemas but give plenty of bland white males starring roles before they have proved themselves. That's what many of us find annoying. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gopher Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 So, err, I'm guessing Man of Steel takes back some IMAX screens next weekend... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fancyarcher Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 There's so much wrong with this statement and I don't have the time to put you in your place. But one small example for you. Bill Murray: The Razor's Edge. It was a drama (and sold as one as well), not a comedy, and dramas starring comedians aren’t known for doing well at the box office. Again not a good example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Marston Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 (edited) Liam Hemsworth was in The Last Song, a small little hit, and was in The Hunger Games, a giant blockbuster. Picking him is still a safer bet than some random person Why to give him the lead role then instead of someone more talented if he doesn't have any draw power and can't impress the audience? Hollywood is reluctant to give starring roles for women and POCs since they don't supposedly draw audience to cinemas but give plenty of bland white males starring roles before they have proved themselves. That's what many of us find annoying. Edited August 22, 2013 by Robert Muldoon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
