riczhang Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 Be around 1.1mThank you. That's pretty good for Skyfall. Probably 3.5-4 million for the weekend? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Marston Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 I haven't seen The Hobbit yet. Is it really deserving of this bad performance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fake Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 Rth is saying Germany is staying basically flat. But France is down 50%.Hmmm..... so those two cancel out each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riczhang Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 I haven't seen The Hobbit yet. Is it really deserving of this bad performance?No. It's not LOTR great, but it's still a pretty damn good movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowhite Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 (edited) I haven't seen The Hobbit yet. Is it really deserving of this bad performance?Nope...great movie. But let's put it in perspective...this film is failing to be as massive as we were expecting...but it's not like it's a bomb or something. It's just falling way short of the performance of its predecessors. But it's still gonna be successful more than deserving of multiple sequels. The "bad performance" is only relative to its predecessors. Edited December 22, 2012 by kowhite 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fake Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 I haven't seen The Hobbit yet. Is it really deserving of this bad performance?I gave it 7.5/10, same as TASM, and it seems it is heading for a similar total!If it somehow finishes below TASM....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Marston Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 Nope...great movie. But let's put it in perspective...this film is failing to be as massive as we were expecting...but it's not like it's a bomb or something. It's just falling way short of the performance of its predecessors. But it's still gonna be successful more than deserving of multiple sequels.A possible sub 309m gross is just bad and shows a major disconnect with audiences Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riczhang Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 Nope...great movie. But let's put it in perspective...this film is failing to be as massive as we were expecting...but it's not like it's a bomb or something. It's just falling way short of the performance of its predecessors. But it's still gonna be successful more than deserving of multiple sequels.If it fails to hit 300M it's not just disappointing, it could be bordering a failing to make money in the theatrical run. The movies cost something like 200M a piece (500M for the original two, plus whatever extra costs associated with the third movie) then there's Global marketing which will probably cost 200 million which is roughly what a big movie gets I think. That means that using a 50/50 ration then it'll need to gross 800 million WW to real even. However the reality is that the DOM ratio is mucher higher than OS, so the true breakeven figure is probably closer to 900M WW. That's definitely in jeopardy right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mango Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 Ouch for The Hobbit. I finally saw a late show tonight with some friends and it was about 30% full but that theater is never particularly busy. Still, it is doing pretty well when you don't think about the LotR trilogy, but that was stuff of legend. So honestly it shouldn't be taken as something degrading for Hobbit not doing as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lab276 Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 (edited) Still, it is doing pretty well when you don't think about the LotR trilogy, but that was stuff of legend. So honestly it shouldn't be taken as something degrading for Hobbit not doing as well.But you can't just not take it into account. Edited December 22, 2012 by lab276 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowhite Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 (edited) If it fails to hit 300M it's not just disappointing, it could be bordering a failing to make money in the theatrical run. The movies cost something like 200M a piece (500M for the original two, plus whatever extra costs associated with the third movie) then there's Global marketing which will probably cost 200 million which is roughly what a big movie gets I think. That means that using a 50/50 ration then it'll need to gross 800 million WW to real even. However the reality is that the DOM ratio is mucher higher than OS, so the true breakeven figure is probably closer to 900M WW. That's definitely in jeopardy right now.While nothing you say is mathematically wrong...I seriously doubt this is putting WB's financials at risk of falling seriously short of expectations. Some of you guys are talking like this film is going to lose money...and, well, it's not. Granted, it's going to fall short of what I'm sure some wanted it to do...but knowing how studios forecast, it's not like WB was planning this to do $1.5 billion worldwide.This is a disappointing performance, I will agree. But let's not get hyperbolic about it. No studio greenlights movies based on theatrical breakevens. That's just not how it works. Had WB known this was how it would play out...they still would've made them. Edited December 22, 2012 by kowhite 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lab276 Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 While nothing you say is mathematically wrong...I seriously doubt this is putting WB's financials at risk of falling seriously short of expectations. Some of you guys are talking like this film is going to lose money...and, well, it's not. Granted, it's going to fall short of what I'm sure some wanted it to do...but knowing how studios forecast, it's not like WB was planning this to do $1.5 billion worldwide.This is a disappointing performance, I will agree. But let's not get hyperbolic about it. No studio greenlights movies based on theatrical breakevens. That's just not how it works. Had WB known this was how it would play out...they still would've made them.Obviously Warners will be fine. But I've never understood this line of thought, it just seems like a bad excuse to me. Who cares if Warners will make money or won't? It's BO performance is nothing short of disappointing and there's just no way around that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockNrollaDIM Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 So TH1 under DH1 even with 3D boost!:rofl:Pathetic.DHI is an instant classic so I'm thrilled it's gonna beat this garbage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockNrollaDIM Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 I haven't seen The Hobbit yet. Is it really deserving of this bad performance?Completely. It's a steaming pile. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riczhang Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 While nothing you say is mathematically wrong...I seriously doubt this is putting WB's financials at risk of falling seriously short of expectations. Some of you guys are talking like this film is going to lose money...and, well, it's not. Granted, it's going to fall short of what I'm sure some wanted it to do...but knowing how studios forecast, it's not like WB was planning this to do $1.5 billion worldwide.This is a disappointing performance, I will agree. But let's not get hyperbolic about it. No studio greenlights movies based on theatrical breakevens. That's just not how it works. Had WB known this was how it would play out...they still would've made them.What they forecast publically and what they actually expect in private are two very different things. Of course when everything is said and done with every penny accounted for it's going to make money but maybe not until it hits DVD and VOD. Which for a movie widely predicted and expected to make money on theatrical release it's a fairly big disappointment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowhite Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 Obviously Warners will be fine. But I've never understood this line of thought, it just seems like a bad excuse to me. Who cares if Warners will make money or won't? It's BO performance is nothing short of disappointing and there's just no way around that.What line of thought? It is disappointing...I'm just trying to put it in perspective. Some of you are acting like this is a disaster of John Carter proportions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riczhang Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 What line of thought? It is disappointing...I'm just trying to put it in perspective. Some of you are acting like this is a disaster of John Carter proportions.Financially no, but based on studio/public anticipated gross vs actual gross it's a much bigger disaster. By OD everyone knew JC would flop and no one was particularly surprised. However with TH, everyone was. Warner put it on about 12200 screens which is more than what Harry Ptter, Avengers, TDKR, BD2 and other huge movies got. Warner was anticipating a huge OW gross and they didn't get it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riczhang Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 What is the all time screen count record? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lab276 Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 (edited) What line of thought? It is disappointing...I'm just trying to put it in perspective. Some of you are acting like this is a disaster of John Carter proportions.The line of thought that "[studio] will be fine". Who cares if they're fine? It reads like you're excusing a poor performance. Edited December 22, 2012 by lab276 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowhite Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 Financially no, but based on studio/public anticipated gross vs actual gross it's a much bigger disaster. By OD everyone knew JC would flop and no one was particularly surprised. However with TH, everyone was. Warner put it on about 12200 screens which is more than what Harry Ptter, Avengers, TDKR, BD2 and other huge movies got. Warner was anticipating a huge OW gross and they didn't get it.Let's get real here...financially is all that really matters to the only people that really care. I have no idea what planet someone must be on to pretend this is a John Carter level of disaster. WB didn't spend more money on this film than John Carter...yet are going to make substantially more money. Yet...it's a bigger disaster? You're not going to be successful in explaining to me how that makes any sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
