Weekend Estimates Hobbit 36.7 pg 33

[druv10]

If the run continues the way it is, Hobbit stands a chance of not breaking even or making money on its theatrical run, which I doubt anyone anticipated.

I doubt that. BO.com list it's total budget at 315M so it'll break even at 630M which is happening.

[druv10]

JC and Battleship were not eagerly awaited and overhyped up like The Hobbit from the get go and were labeled trash long before their opening.

No doubt. Hobbit is my disappointment of the year but Kitsch did have ridiculously bad year.

[kowhite]

If the run continues the way it is, Hobbit stands a chance of not breaking even or making money on its theatrical run, which I doubt anyone anticipated.

It seems quite feasible it won't. think many of us thought this was a shoe-in to make a billion worldwide, which is looking like a much more dire prospect. Of course, this film needed to do like $900M-$1B worldwide to breakeven theatrically, which I imagine it's going to be around at the end of the day regardless.I do feel safe saying there's little to no chance of this film actually losing money though. It's just not turning out to be the mega-blockbuster many of us expected.What will be really curious is how the sequel performances pan out due to this performance.

I doubt that. BO.com list it's total budget at 315M so it'll break even at 630M which is happening.

Budget plus P&A is breakeven. And P&A is probably $150M-$200M. So $900M-$1B is probably the threshold for a theatrical breakeven. Edited December 22, 2012 by kowhite

[IndustriousAngel]

The goal for WB is not to "win its budget back" but to make profits. I mean you don't spend that much money just to earn the same amount of money.

That goes without saying. It's just not the disappointment of the year. There were worse runs. Even much worse. Edited December 22, 2012 by IndustriousAngel

[druv10]

It seems quite feasible it won't. think many of us thought this was a shoe-in to make a billion worldwide, which is looking like a much more dire prospect. Of course, this film needed to do like $900M-$1B worldwide to breakeven theatrically, which I imagine it's going to be around at the end of the day regardless.I do feel safe saying there's little to no chance of this film actually losing money though. It's just not turning out to be the mega-blockbuster many of us expected.What will be really curious is how the sequel performances pan out due to this performance.Budget plus P&A is breakeven. And P&A is probably $150M-$200M. So $900M-$1B is probably the threshold for a theatrical breakeven.

BO.com listed the total budget at 315M. Meaning P&A is including in it.

[kowhite]

BO.com listed the total budget at 315M. Meaning P&A is including in it.

Ah.Granted, I'm having a hard time believing that figure. P&A is probably closer to $200M, and no way this film cost less than $150M.Kind of a moot point though, this film is still going to make a lot of money. Just not...massive amounts of money. Edited December 22, 2012 by kowhite

[druv10]

That goes without saying. It's just not the disappointment of the year. There were worse runs. Even much worse.

It's definitely disappointment of the year with the expectations it had. Now clearly, we had epic BO bombs from JC, DS, BS and more but clearly nobody expected this kind struggle to even reach 1B WW.

[kowhite]

It's definitely disappointment of the year with the expectations it had. Now clearly, we had epic BO bombs from JC, DS, BS and more but clearly nobody expected this kind struggle to even reach 1B WW.

I could go with disappointment of the year. Certainly it's falling way short of what I thought it could do. A couple months ago I was thinking this could pull a run rivaling Deathly Hallows 2.I think we just have to differentiate between box office disappointment...and box office failure. Two very different things.

[kitik]

RoTG is actually up from last week.

ROTG has the worst PTA of any movie in the top 10. The only reason its in 4th place is because a bunch of theaters decided to keep screening it due to the subject matter. (None of the other movies currently in release are even remotely Christmas-related, are they?) It will plummet as soon as the holidays are over.

[druv10]

Ah.Granted, I'm having a hard time believing that figure. P&A is probably closer to $200M, and no way this film cost less than $150M.Kind of a moot point though, this film is still going to make a lot of money. Just not...massive amounts of money.

Jackson probably get some tax breaks from New Zealand. 200M for the budget is a good bet and likewise 115M for P&A.

[kowhite]

Jackson probably get some tax breaks from New Zealand. 200M for the budget is a good bet and likewise 115M for P&A.

Sounds right on the budget.P&A though? No way it's $115, at least $150M, probably more like $175M. I've seen enough P&A costs on tentpoles to know $115M is a pipedream.I did manange to find another article...here...http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/the-hobbit-is-no-1-at-the-box-office/Calling it $400M. That sounds more right.

[Jake Gittes]

That goes without saying. It's just not the disappointment of the year. There were worse runs. Even much worse.

Just because they were worse doesn't mean they were more disappointing. I mean, who was disappointed by what Battleship or Dark Shadows made?Personally for me, the saddest BO story of the year was Cloud Atlas (I loved it, unlike TH, and while it was never going to be a huge hit, WB had no idea what to do with it and so they just dumped it, without any attempt to make a connection with audiences), followed probably by Perks of Being a Wallflower, but The Hobbit is definitely up there, and it's right on top if you only consider large scale releases. I mean, even fucking TASM performed on a high end of its expectations.

[CloneWars]

WB messed up. That's all there is to it. Luckily, I have faith that with a super strong marketing push Part can see a 30% to 50% increase. The last LotR films increased by 10% and Shrekt 2, Skyfall, and TDK that films can increase by large sums.The biggest problem was the marketing. As others have stated, WB got beyond lazy and felt the name alone would sell. The best trailer was the first one and they should have held that off until TDKR. Also, they had very few commercials and the marketing was all over the place. They should have focused on the action and Gollum more in the marketing. Gollum sells movies.For part 2, they really need to amp up the marketing for AUJ's HV debut. Then, they need to have a larger marketing campaign than hoped for for Part 2 and mostly focus on the Dragon and action. Dragons and action tend to sell films, I think.The second big mistake was turning this into three films without giving the GA assurances that the films would be good. A better marketing campaign would have shown people that three films would work out.Third, the film shouldn't have exceeded 2 hours and 20 minutes. We know an extended edition is coming out. A lot of stuff could have been left for that. I think the runtime probably caused it to get bad reviews. The film needed to be tighter.But, there is still hope that part 2 can rebound from part 1 with the proper marketing campaign.Man, it looks like WB is going to have a bad decade ahead of itself unless by some miracle they can make Justice League work. Not likely seeing how popular TA already is.

[Halba]

flopbit is really flopping. it is a 1 film movie a short amount of content only. studios think they are smarter than audiences? audiences arent stupid to donate profits to film companies. the film, the content has to be good, and it wasnt. the RT score is only 65% and in a strong yr for filmmaking , its not even a top 10 major film critically. looks like barely getting 250m in domestic, and about 580 overseas. total should finish around 840-850million.its combined total budget is around $400m or so incl advertisingFrom its bulbous goblin king to its nearly three-hour running time to its budget — an estimated $400 million, including global marketing costssource for budgethttp://artsbeat.blog...the-box-office/850 * 45% studio average profit = 382million.in summary 400m cost vs 382 profit portion, it doesnt stand to break even on theatrical run. also my worldwide figure of 580m is in the middle upper range.when compared to LOTR inflation adjusted, this is so bad it doesnt merit comparisonthis disappointment does not bode well for the sequel. its sequel goes from being hotly anticipated to just 'meh'. i dont think marketing is a big deal, the content has to be good

Edited December 22, 2012 by Halba

[kitik]

Just because they were worse doesn't mean they were more disappointing. I mean, who was disappointed by what Battleship or Dark Shadows made?Personally for me, the saddest BO story of the year was Cloud Atlas (I loved it, unlike TH, and while it was never going to be a huge hit, WB had no idea what to do with it and so they just dumped it, without any attempt to make a connection with audiences), followed probably by Perks of Being a Wallflower, but The Hobbit is definitely up there, and it's right on top if you only consider large scale releases. I mean, even fucking TASM performed on a high end of its expectations.

I liked Cloud Atlas, but it was never going to be a hit, so I'm not really sad about it.As for TASM, what's going to make more money, TASM 2 or Hobbit 2?I can't pretend to be inside everybody else's brains, but it kind of seems to me like people are more looking forward to another TASM movie than another Hobbit movie.

[Jake Gittes]

First of all, it won't have a problem with crossing 250, second of all, no film with $250m dom and $850m WW gross is ever a flop until we are dealing with like $400m production budgets and $300m promo budgets. The Hobbit disappointed, underwhelmed, whatever, but it didn't flop.

[kowhite]

flopbit is really flopping. it is a 1 film movie a short amount of content only. studios think they are smarter than audiences? audiences arent stupid to donate profits to film companies. the film, the content has to be good, and it wasnt. looks like barely getting 250m in domestic, and about 580 overseas. total should finish around 840-850million.

When did the word flop...become appropriate for describing profitable films that make $850M at the worldwide box office?

[rockNrollaDIM]

flopbit is really flopping. it is a 1 film movie a short amount of content only. studios think they are smarter than audiences? audiences arent stupid to donate profits to film companies. the film, the content has to be good, and it wasnt. looks like barely getting 250m in domestic, and about 580 overseas. total should finish around 840-850million.

Flopbit :rofl:

[kitik]

Flopbit :rofl:

I'll take Flobbit or Floppit, but not Flopbit.

[Jake Gittes]

As for TASM, what's going to make more money, TASM 2 or Hobbit 2?I can't pretend to be inside everybody else's brains, but it kind of seems to me like people are more looking forward to another TASM movie than another Hobbit movie.

No idea. Both have room to grow and marketing campaigns will determine a lot (I'm not even talking about quality). TASM 2 will open summer, will introduce MJ and I imagine Foxx will have a bit of a comeback with Django so if they don't screw up his villain people will be more excited to see him than usual. Desolation of Smaug will have exactly that - Smaug, plus increased stakes and more varied action (AUJ mostly just had the dwarves bumping into trolls/orcs/goblins/wargs, DOS will have Bilbo vs giant spiders and Smaug attacking a city now being in full sight). Both could go under 300, both could approach or even cross 350. I think they'll end up fairly close.