Why did Opening Weekend numbers explode in 2000-2001?

[grim22]

This topic has been brought up a lot this summer with The Mummy and Apes releasing, so I decided to open a thread for this.

 

Coming into 2001, the OW record had been held by The Lost World for over 3 years with 72M, Phantom Menace would have definitely broken the record if it opened on a Friday, but it had a Wednesday opening and did 64M over Fri-Sun proper. We didn't have any movies approaching the 60M OW mark in that 1997 to 2000 stretch. 

 

Then it all changed in 2000. We had MI2 do 57M Fri-Sun with a Wednesday opening, X-Men did 54M, Toy Story 2 do 57M F-S with a Wednesday opening and The Grinch do 55M. This was nothing compared to 2001 though, when we got

• Hannibal in February with a 58M OW - an R-rated movie with no major action setpieces opened to 58M which was the 3rd highest OW till that point
• The Mummy Returns came within 4M of the OW record with a 68M OW
• Planet of the Apes also did 68M
• Rush Hour 2 did 67M - A Comedy with Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker almost beat the record of The Lost World
• Monsters Inc then did 63M, before
• Harry Potter crushed the record with 90M, but we still had
• Pearl Harbor open to 60M

 

After a long stretch of only one movie with an opening between 60-70M, in 2001 we had 5 movies do that. By the end of the 2000-2001 stretch, we had 12 of the top 15 OWs being within the past 24 months, and 7 of the top 10 being within 2001 itself. 

 

What caused the OW numbers to explode like they did with the turn of the millennium? As seen, it was all sorts of genres and all different stars and concepts with the huge OWs.

[That One Girl]

This is all theorizing since I wasn't alive/was an infant during this time (lol shut up), but I feel like the growth of the internet might have played a role into this.  People started to hype films up in online communities more, fanbases grew larger for certain properties that would go out and see it immediately on OW, etc.

 

don't @ me if this is wildly incorrect for whatever reason

[TwoMisfits]

5 minutes ago, grim22 said:

This topic has been brought up a lot this summer with The Mummy and Apes releasing, so I decided to open a thread for this.

 

Coming into 2001, the OW record had been held by The Lost World for over 3 years with 72M, Phantom Menace would have definitely broken the record if it opened on a Friday, but it had a Wednesday opening and did 64M over Fri-Sun proper. We didn't have any movies approaching the 60M OW mark in that 1997 to 2000 stretch. 

 

Then it all changed in 2000. We had MI2 do 57M Fri-Sun with a Wednesday opening, X-Men did 54M, Toy Story 2 do 57M F-S with a Wednesday opening and The Grinch do 55M. This was nothing compared to 2001 though, when we got

• Hannibal in February with a 58M OW - an R-rated movie with no major action setpieces opened to 58M which was the 3rd highest OW till that point
• The Mummy Returns came within 4M of the OW record with a 68M OW
• Planet of the Apes also did 68M
• Rush Hour 2 did 67M - A Comedy with Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker almost beat the record of The Lost World
• Monsters Inc then did 63M, before
• Harry Potter crushed the record with 90M, but we still had
• Pearl Harbor open to 60M

 

After a long stretch of only one movie with an opening between 60-70M, in 2001 we had 5 movies do that. By the end of the 2000-2001 stretch, we had 12 of the top 15 OWs being within the past 24 months, and 7 of the top 10 being within 2001 itself. 

 

What caused the OW numbers to explode like they did with the turn of the millennium? As seen, it was all sorts of genres and all different stars and concepts with the huge OWs.

Can we just say the ticket prices?  Is that too simple?  There was a full decade with almost no ticket price increases and then a pretty rapid increase starting in 1999 until now...I mean, it took 9 years (from 1990-1998) to raise 48 cents...and then just 1 year to almost match that ($.39 in 1999)...and then it's been on...

 

2001    $5.66
2000    $5.39
1999    $5.08
1998    $4.69
1997    $4.59
1996    $4.42
1995    $4.35
1994    $4.18
1993    $4.14
1992    $4.15
1991    $4.21
1990    $4.23

[filmlover]

7 minutes ago, grim22 said:

This topic has been brought up a lot this summer with The Mummy and Apes releasing, so I decided to open a thread for this.

 

Coming into 2001, the OW record had been held by The Lost World for over 3 years with 72M, Phantom Menace would have definitely broken the record if it opened on a Friday, but it had a Wednesday opening and did 64M over Fri-Sun proper. We didn't have any movies approaching the 60M OW mark in that 1997 to 2000 stretch. 

 

Then it all changed in 2000. We had MI2 do 57M Fri-Sun with a Wednesday opening, X-Men did 54M, Toy Story 2 do 57M F-S with a Wednesday opening and The Grinch do 55M. This was nothing compared to 2001 though, when we got

• Hannibal in February with a 58M OW - an R-rated movie with no major action setpieces opened to 58M which was the 3rd highest OW till that point
• The Mummy Returns came within 4M of the OW record with a 68M OW
• Planet of the Apes also did 68M
• Rush Hour 2 did 67M - A Comedy with Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker almost beat the record of The Lost World
• Monsters Inc then did 63M, before
• Harry Potter crushed the record with 90M, but we still had
• Pearl Harbor open to 60M

 

After a long stretch of only one movie with an opening between 60-70M, in 2001 we had 5 movies do that. By the end of the 2000-2001 stretch, we had 12 of the top 15 OWs being within the past 24 months, and 7 of the top 10 being within 2001 itself. 

 

What caused the OW numbers to explode like they did with the turn of the millennium? As seen, it was all sorts of genres and all different stars and concepts with the huge OWs.

A lot of these movies can attribute their success to some really stellar marketing campaigns that got people excited for them. Planet of the Apes, in particular, had a crazy good one (too bad the movie sucked).

[Fancyarcher]

Well as someone who was only 8 / 9 during that period, I seem to recall this was the era when the studio really started to push the "hype factor" to its fullest. Also as you mentioned Grim, all of those films had something working for them, whether it was a sequel to a popular film (which was most of these films) that was only being released 2 or 3 years after the original, or because the concept was intriguing enough.

 

I remember the hype for Pearl Harbor being big around that time for example. I kept seeing the commercials & of course some people in the press were hyping it up as the next Titanic, which it turned out to be not be. POTA's marketing campaign was also massive.

Edited August 7, 2017 by Fancyarcher

[Barnack]

21 minutes ago, TwoMisfits said:

Can we just say the ticket prices?  Is that too simple?  There was a full decade with almost no ticket price increases and then a pretty rapid increase starting in 1999 until now...I mean, it took 9 years (from 1990-1998) to raise 48 cents...and then just 1 year to almost match that ($.39 in 1999)...and then it's been on...

 

That a good place to look at, theater screens could be an other one:

 

2002	35,688
2001	35,506
2000	36,379
1999	37,131
1998	34,168
1997	31,865
1996	29,731
1995	27,843
1994	26,689
1993	25,626
1992	25,214
1991	24,639
1990	23,814

 

11,000 more in 2001 than 1991, big push in 1999, that maybe does not change much the box office total (number of theater is maybe more relevant for that than screens), but number of screen and the number of screen by theater going up probably change the first weekend a lot.

 

Lost world in 1997 openned in 3,281 theater, Harry Potter in 2001 in 3,672 theater, and if we had the number of screen that both opened on the difference would be a bit larger.

 

And other one was marketing selling the movie before more than the word of mouth over time after the openning ?

 

in 1995 you have article like this:

Advertising, marketing and print costs increased to an average of $16.1 million per film (around 26.45 million today dollars),

 

in article called: Average Cost of Making, Marketing Movie Soars

http://articles.latimes.com/1995-03-08/business/fi-40252_1_average-cost

 

I imagine that was for the domestic market alone, but that was still much cheaper, by 2007 it was up to 36m (around 42.5m in today dollars).

 

If ticket did cost around 23% more in 2001 than 1997 and you openned your movie on around 10-15% more screen/theater, you can already see were pretty much all the 67m to 90m jump come from.

[Premium George]

38 minutes ago, TwoMisfits said:

Can we just say the ticket prices?  Is that too simple?  There was a full decade with almost no ticket price increases and then a pretty rapid increase starting in 1999 until now...I mean, it took 9 years (from 1990-1998) to raise 48 cents...and then just 1 year to almost match that ($.39 in 1999)...and then it's been on...

 

2001    $5.66
2000    $5.39
1999    $5.08
1998    $4.69
1997    $4.59
1996    $4.42
1995    $4.35
1994    $4.18
1993    $4.14
1992    $4.15
1991    $4.21
1990    $4.23

 

5 minutes ago, Barnack said:

That a good place to look at, theater screens could be an other one:

 

2002	35,688
2001	35,506
2000	36,379
1999	37,131
1998	34,168
1997	31,865
1996	29,731
1995	27,843
1994	26,689
1993	25,626
1992	25,214
1991	24,639
1990	23,814

 

11,000 more in 2001 than 1991, big push in 1999, that maybe does not change much the box office total (number of theater is maybe more relevant for that than screens), but number of screen and the number of screen by theater going up probably change the first weekend a lot.

 

Lost world in 1997 openned in 3,281 theater, Harry Potter in 2001 in 3,672 theater, and if we had the number of screen that both opened on the difference would be a bit larger.

 

And other one was marketing selling the movie before more than the word of mouth over time after the openning ?

 

in 1995 you have article like this:

Advertising, marketing and print costs increased to an average of $16.1 million per film (around 26.45 million today dollars),

 

in article called: Average Cost of Making, Marketing Movie Soars

http://articles.latimes.com/1995-03-08/business/fi-40252_1_average-cost

 

I imagine that was for the domestic market alone, but that was still much cheaper, by 2007 it was up to 36m (around 42.5m in today dollars).

 

If ticket did cost around 23% more in 2001 than 1997 and you openned your movie on around 10-15% more screen/theater, you can already see were pretty much all the 67m to 90m jump come from.

Thanks for that. I think theater and screens both have stopped increasing now as well as marketing costs or hype machine. Seeing that we could see TFA record for a long time. Even $200m OW ($60m OW of 2000) will remain very rare. In the future, There could be another 2000 situation with high ticket inflation, and other factors, where we could see multiple $200M OWs. 

[Webslinger]

Hannibal, The Mummy Returns, and Rush Hour 2 were all sequels to well-liked (or beloved and Oscar-winning in Silence of the Lambs's case) films that overperformed at the box office and picked up an even wider following on video. All three were perfect cases of studios making sequels that moviegoers actually wanted to see, and a steady increase in available theaters and screens made it easier than ever for them to do so.

 

The funny thing about Pearl Harbor is that its opening was actually seen as a disappointment back in the day. Plenty of pundits were expecting it to break The Lost World's record, and Disney even made a point of securing unusually early and late showtimes (back when times in the 12-9 range were still the norm for many locations) to compensate for the three-hour running time.

[Barnack]

23 minutes ago, damnitgeorge08 said:

 

Thanks for that. I think theater and screens both have stopped increasing now as well as marketing costs or hype machine. Seeing that we could see TFA record for a long time. Even $200m OW ($60m OW of 2000) will remain very rare. In the future, There could be another 2000 situation with high ticket inflation, and other factors, where we could see multiple $200M OWs. 

Pretty much, since 2009 in the US alone:

2016	40,174
2015	40,006
2014	39,956
2013	40,024
2012	39,662
2011	39,580
2010	39,520
2009	39,233

 

 

7 year in a row moving from 39.23k to very low 40.17k screen's, has for marketing cost I would also imagine that it is the case since the dvd bubbles went away, I would imagine the last push on first weekend growth were the digital distribution + online sales of tickets/online buzz in general + longer OW that include thursday 7pm to late sunday show, other than the movies themselves.

 

Force Awaken record could stick for a very long time, specially if the last Avengers with the original cast does not beat it and if Star Wars itself does not do it.

Edited August 7, 2017 by Barnack

[Spidey Freak]

1 hour ago, Fancyarcher said:

Well as someone who was only 8 / 9 during that period, I seem to recall this was the era when the studio really started to push the "hype factor" to its fullest. Also as you mentioned Grim, all of those films had something working for them, whether it was a sequel to a popular film (which was most of these films) that was only being released 2 or 3 years after the original, or because the concept was intriguing enough.

 

I remember the hype for Pearl Harbor being big around that time for example. I kept seeing the commercials & of course some people in the press were hyping it up as the next Titanic, which it turned out to be not be. POTA's marketing campaign was also massive.

That's how I remember it too. Most of the 90's blockbusters like JP, ID, TS1 and TLK gained larger awareness after they were released and became WOM monsters. However, I was already aware of the early 00's blockbusters like TPM, PotA, HP and FotR before their release thanks to their aggressive marketing.

 

HPatSS marketing in particular was monstrous for a previously non-established cinematic franchise. The casting of the three lead kids received a lot of media attention, and that was the reason a lot of kids (me included) who weren't into the books before caught up with them before the movie came out so that we could be a part of what everybody else was talking about. I still remember seeing this pic in the newspaper. People were behaving like they were the modern day King Arthurs chosen by none other than destiny itself

 

[Maxmoser3]

2000-2003 box office was amazing to follow! In the early 2000's, it seemed that Studios and audiences wanted to see both sequels and original stuff.

 

Like with sequels , studios focused on what was necessary which yeah we had our Crocidille Dundee In Los Angeles, or Flintstones In Viva Rock Vegas. But with sequels being sucessful wasn't an issue with then home video and video stores were still relevant as audiences could catch before the next Hannibal, American Pie, Mission Impossible, or Mummy film(just to name a few). 

 

Same with remakes, we got films that both audiences and critics were impressed with as Ocean's Eleven and Planet Of The Apes were remade. But the Christmas legs, stellar wom, and ensemble cast drew Oceans in with an amazing $183 million total. Then as for Apes, with mixed wom but with an amazing release date the film had performed well and was a film if it came it today with bad wom it would have made $80 million total. 

 

As for original films, things were different as a comedy film such as Scary Movie can do over $40 million and close to $160 million domestic. Which was amazing for a modest budget film, and was even close to outgross the original X-Men! Another film(well yes I'm using summer films), the original Fast & Furious, which outgrossed films with big casts that headlined in 2001. 

 

The only difference now is that Studios and filmmakers have fatigued and ran out of ideas, although original stuff this year has outgrossed Alien:Covenant. It seems that as well audiences are so used to more sequels nowadays left & right, which will more likely be the downfall of physical media and movie theaters. Studios have also seemed too reliable on one idea or making franchises, which was what was avoided then until 2001 and 2003 as franchises turned out to be strong. But original films still pulled out cash, and had even held on well which is unusual for today's box office. 

[Fancyarcher]

1 hour ago, Spidey Freak said:

That's how I remember it too. Most of the 90's blockbusters like JP, ID, TS1 and TLK gained larger awareness after they were released and became WOM monsters. However, I was already aware of the early 00's blockbusters like TPM, PotA, HP and FotR before their release thanks to their aggressive marketing.

 

HPatSS marketing in particular was monstrous for a previously non-established cinematic franchise. The casting of the three lead kids received a lot of media attention, and that was the reason a lot of kids (me included) who weren't into the books before caught up with them before the movie came out so that we could be a part of what everybody else was talking about. I still remember seeing this pic in the newspaper. People were behaving like they were the modern day King Arthurs chosen by none other than destiny itself

 

The hype for Potter really brings back me. I still remember everyone in my class wanted to see it, and WB was no slouch when it came to marketing the film either. It helps that they had such a popular brand, but they really took it "far" at the time, it was everything prior to release, magazines, constant interviews etc... you name it. 

 

I was a fan of the book, but the trailers & commercial really sold the film for me. Harry Potter & The Sorcerer's Stone still remains one of my favorite theater experience too, especially since I saw it a week after my birthday.

Edited August 7, 2017 by Fancyarcher

[Jonwo]

I wonder if the rise of the multiplex helped to increase box office not just on OW but in general.

[filmlover]

1 minute ago, Jonwo said:

I wonder if the rise of the multiplex helped to increase box office not just on OW but in general.

Probably. I remember many of the local multiplexes near me opened in that 1998-2000 time period.

[Barnack]

13 minutes ago, Jonwo said:

I wonder if the rise of the multiplex helped to increase box office not just on OW but in general.

Depend versus which era, because loosing thousands of location in the process:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/188643/number-of-us-cinema-sites-since-1995/

 

Probably countered the multiplex benefit a little bit (not for first weekend blockbuster, but in general).

 

But the ticket by capita peaked in the early 2000's with 5.7 (around 40% more than today), more than the 80s/90s, so maybe the added comfort of the multiplex experience played a role.

 

Page 9 of that MPAA document:

https://www.immagic.com/eLibrary/ARCHIVES/GENERAL/MPAA_US/M050309M.pdf

 

 

[grim22]

On 8/7/2017 at 8:27 AM, Barnack said:

Depend versus which era, because loosing thousands of location in the process:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/188643/number-of-us-cinema-sites-since-1995/

 

Probably countered the multiplex benefit a little bit (not for first weekend blockbuster, but in general).

 

But the ticket by capita peaked in the early 2000's with 5.7 (around 40% more than today), more than the 80s/90s, so maybe the added comfort of the multiplex experience played a role.

 

Page 9 of that MPAA document:

https://www.immagic.com/eLibrary/ARCHIVES/GENERAL/MPAA_US/M050309M.pdf

 

 

 

It's definitely interesting for sure. Seems like it was the perfect time combined with the right movies and an audience which wanted to go to the movies as internet speeds hadn't yet caught up to make a dent in theatrical moviegoing.