Australia Australian Box Office | ....

[lab276]

No one cares about Step Up. How did TDKR do?

[CJohn]

I was just curious

[lab276]

[DeeCee]

As Ted becomes the highest ever MA15+ movie it gets passed for 2012 by TDKR.

[lab276]

I saw E.T. at the State Theatre today, and I must say it was a lovely experience. Rth, do the tickets that were sold for the Universal 100 Year Anniversary count for the final yearly admissions and will whatever those films have grossed be added to their totals?

[JJ-8]

[JJ-8]

[JJ-8]

Edited August 6, 2012 by Jajang

[JJ-8]

[JJ-8]

[JJ-8]

[JJ-8]

[Rthmessiah]

Notes on Above post

- All $ in AUD

- All dates in Day/Month/Year format

- Only includes films released in 2012 (ie. by release date not calendar gross)

- Close date reflects date movie leaves top 20 (and $ at that date).

I'm tracking the following films which will likely end up in the top 20 of 2012 by the end of it's run (at least for a time):

POS

Weeks

Movie

Rating

Opening Weekend

Theatres

Total Gross

Open

Close*

25

2

Magic Mike

MA15+

$ 3,819,593

332

$ 8,129,940

26/07/12

all good charts Jajang, couple things with top films 2012 should include carry overs from 2011 but even so there aren't any that would rank top 20 , closest is Tin Tin #21, your missing Alvin..chipmunks #9 19,207,671 and the label "theatres" should really be "prints" or could say screens seeing that the label on a lot of reports, obviously grosses are bit higher for films ot in top 20 anymore but it dosen't change any of the rankings.

[Rthmessiah]

I saw E.T. at the State Theatre today, and I must say it was a lovely experience. Rth, do the tickets that were sold for the Universal 100 Year Anniversary count for the final yearly admissions and will whatever those films have grossed be added to their totals?

i was there it was good. State is where it originally played (all the films playing there atm as part of Uni 100 yrs all in their original release played there)thats like saying does any old film get updated in some cases yes in some no and sometimes on older films where BO wasn't recorded or not properly its just the Rental figure update (which most BO on old titles is estimated from) and even if the update is given BO and or rentals mpdaa etc may/may not update in their system.ET for example in the last 10 years has taked 1.2m30th ann. this year might get a bit of a reissue later in the year Edited August 7, 2012 by Rth

[druv10]

Rth, can you help out in the China OS thread. Can you explain, how much studios make in early part of a movies run? Is it 70%, 80% or more/less?

[JJ-8]

all good charts Jajang, couple things with top films 2012 should include carry overs from 2011 but even so there aren't any that would rank top 20 , closest is Tin Tin #21, your missing Alvin..chipmunks #9 19,207,671 and the label "theatres" should really be "prints" or could say screens seeing that the label on a lot of reports, obviously grosses are bit higher for films ot in top 20 anymore but it dosen't change any of the rankings.

I must ask why we follow this method ? I'm alligning this chart (like i normally do) with how the movies are reported in the US.Never really understood that method - it means the hobbit films will never be #1 for the year - especially this year even if it makes > 55m overall!(either way it doesn't change the chart so ... lol )Not sure how i missed alvin i will fix that up. I knew that these movies have made a little since leaving the top 20, but for now since I don't have the data i'll live with the chart above :PI'll update the theatres column - yeah that was my bad.... i should know better by now

[ecstasy]

I still can't believe the amount of money Ted is making in Australia. Crazy.

[lab276]

I must ask why we follow this method ? I'm alligning this chart (like i normally do) with how the movies are reported in the US.Never really understood that method - it means the hobbit films will never be #1 for the year - especially this year even if it makes > 55m overall!

It makes more sense to me to do it that way. You get a more accurate representation of what the box office was like for a particular year.

[Rthmessiah]

I must ask why we follow this method ? I'm alligning this chart (like i normally do) with how the movies are reported in the US.Never really understood that method - it means the hobbit films will never be #1 for the year - especially this year even if it makes > 55m overall!(either way it doesn't change the chart so ... lol )Not sure how i missed alvin i will fix that up. I knew that these movies have made a little since leaving the top 20, but for now since I don't have the data i'll live with the chart above :PI'll update the theatres column - yeah that was my bad.... i should know better by now

some post I did a while back below

Actually totally get the BO in year of release, there are two types of charts one that BO in year of releases (which goes to match yearly BO & Market shares etc, i.e. if BO in 2011 (1/1-31/12) is X what actually made up X) which also includes what is the overall BO so X earned Y in 2009 and overall BO is now up to Z. then theres the based on year of release regardless of what time period BO fell (so a 2009 film doesn't appear in 2010).If you go to BOM site and look at yearly BO, two of the options I described above are available for example if you looked at BOM calendar Yearly in 2009 Avatar is #5 and in 2010 its #1, Sherlock Holmes in 2011 is #19 and so far in 2012 is #15.In Australia 2009 Avatar is #3 in 2009 and #1 in 2010, HP DH pt1 in 2010 is #3 and in 2011 is #89The by calendar is the most common because when they say in 2009 the BO was 1.087bil (avatar contributed 40.278m to it and ranked 3) and in 2010 1.128bil (avatar contributed 75.3mil to the total #1 for the year and #1 for Fox for the year)Another example take the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) annual report for 2011 look at page 17, Top 25 films US/Can 2011 it based on BO within the year and includes 2010 titles, there is no BO chart in the report that is just based on films only released in 2011http://www.mpaa.org/...ff6fb5455a9.pdf

Actually if you look at BOM it also includes by calendar year BO, it just when you go to Yearly section the default (or 1st tab) is by year of release the last tab is BO by calendar year. when you read their end of year report and where they mention titles its based on BO in the year (not titles released in year), so when they say that 30 movies grossed 100mil+ in 2011 and 25 in 2010 it includes titles from prior years crossing over if the statement was based on releases for the year it would have said 28 in 2011 and 23 in 2010. its all to qualify what the actually BO was for the year in question.A number of times in the past on BOM forums in aus section, I use to correct statements on when someone said X is the #1 for 2010 and I'd be like no its not its #3 because Z amount is in the following year.

Edited August 7, 2012 by Rth

[JJ-8]

ok ... lol... i'll switch it around though it doesn't really change the chart given nothing from 2011 is big enough to reach 2012's top 20