Question:
This weekend I've just had enough of this obsession with a film's "box office".
The Hulk is getting written off because it's dropping fast and it's not making as much money as films X, Y & Z - and not only that, it's not doing it in a shorter period of time - goddamit!
Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle is a 'disaster' because estimates show it has a smaller opening weekend than the first film. :nuts:
Just WHAT is going on with Hollywood cinema today?
Does EVERY film released have to top the previous one otherwise it's deemed a failure?
A film can only make so much money in so much time - why is a $38 million opening so disappointing? It's a LOT of money!
There are many, many more 'event' pics every week now (and one could argue simply far too many new movies fullstop) and thanks to film-goers' constant tracking of 'the numbers', films are dead before they even get a chance it seems! How many people here in the UK will now decide not to see The Hulk because it's 'bombed' in the US? (and the fact that $100 is now a bomb is preposterous!)
Before the internet and information arriving before an event has even taken place no-one gave a **** how much money something made. It was all about whether we got something from it or enjoyed ourselves.
I really pity the kids of today - "urgh! no! we can't go see that film coz it didn't break the opening day record for a sequel opening in the 1st week of June set by the film that came out on Tuesday!"
Films & their box-office are becoming like the pop charts!
Singles now get played to death on the radio six weeks before release - and therefore 'chart' based on their corporate paid-for airplay a good month before release - giving us the illusion that they actually climb the charts! If a single doesn't get to No1 in the week of official release these days the act in question faces an uncertain future beyond the end of the month! Likewise, movies are now opening earlier and earlier in the week so that 'sneeks' & 'previews' can be factored into the artifically inflated "record-breaking" opening weekends.
When will this madness end? It can't go on because saturation point has all but been reached already.
Imho studios need to go back to the days when movies were actually 'magic' and revenues, budgets, star salaries and film-making secrets were not in the public domain before anyone had even had a chance to see the film in question.
Answer:

I think you will find the box office money has always mattered. After all a lot of money is invested in a movie and if it doesn't make money then someone somwhere lost a lot.
Movies are a business and the bottom line is the how much money they make. As movies get bigger and bigger the expectation on how much a studio can make rises. After all no one wants to rave about a crap film.
I for one would never even look at how much a movie made as being a factor for seeing a movie and I don't think many people would take that into consideration either. It just makes a good talking point. Its more about one studio get one over another.
Answer:

It's always been important to studios, of course.
But recently it's gotten absolutely ridicuous. I think Spiderman really kickstarted it all. As Richie said, if a 'big budget' film doesn't make $100 million within a few weeks, it's deemed a failure or dissapointment, which is a bit ludicrous.
Don't get me wrong, I think overall that blockbuster films have improved in quality in the last couple of years but I think more and more scripts aren't getting greenlit because they aren't expected to make over $100 million or something.
Gary A
Answer:

Of course money matters - to the investors & studio concerned etc. I'm not saying it doesn't. They want to make money, like any industry.
What I am getting at is the pre-release hype at the 'user end' of the (far too crowded) market and the unrealistic expectations created by the studios' marketing departments - It's this that is killing the cinema experience.
Just why can Joe Bloggs have full access to estimated box-office figures before the weekend is even over? It doesn't make any sense, especially when it has the potential to hurt a film's continued release.
What other industry allows this kind of thing to happen?
Months and sometimes years of work, swept away in under 3 days and it doesn't even mean that the film in question is bad! - it could simply be that it's been hyped up too much or marketed wrongly :nuts:
Answer:

With regard's to ''The Hulk'' the drop in Box office this week is important when the movie cost so much to make.It could mean the franchise is dead before it even get's going and also that Universal plain marketed the movie wrong..
Also if your a comic book movie fan ,like me the fact Universal took a risk with Ang Lee and didnt make a stereotypical comic book movie and it now seem's that the movie is flopping is a big deal..
It means other studio's are less likely to take a risk on comic book movies and make them all genetic and to a similar forumla which can only lead to poor movies ...ie Batman and Robin.
Also Comic book movies HAVE to make money becuase of the high cost of producing them poor Box offices will see them made on the cheap which again produces poor movies ..ie Superman 4
Answer:

there is probably a very good argument supporting this whole dissapointing trend.. but i really support everything you say Richie!
but when will it end?? i think really the only way it could all end is if people became more educated about the crap they were being fed by the media... a lot of people don't want to form their own opinions, so they don't mind if the tabloids and morning TV etc.. do it for them.. so see this movie, go buy this album, go worship or despise this person. The media is becoming a new religon in certain ways if you think about it, and i can't see it being toppled over in any short amount of time.. you only need to spend some time in a 3rd world country like India, and see how modern media is quickly taking over modern society. They ignore their own creative output in favour of an MTV slash McDonald's fast food quick edit solution to a new way of life. As the world has become smaller, we start to feel less significant, why form our opinions when they wont amount to much is probably the general concensus, and why this obsession with success leads us to believe thats where the cream of the crop lies... the film was succesful because God aka The Media said so.. therefore we must follow. :dork:
But without getting to serious and OT, I do think there is short term hope in the field of movies.. first off, people are becoming more intelligent about movies, DVDs playing a huge factor in that of course, and also as mentioned Hollywood films are generally getting better, especially the event movies... i know there is still a lot of junk going round, but i do believe in time, people won't be as fickle as to think a movie should be a certain multiplex way, and will expect more from them.. though i personally can't tell whether multiplex mentality is in fact the winning horse in this race. I think it is up to Studios to become a bit more responsible, have more film-makers run them, especially the big ones... it's all fair and fine to fall back on the money excuse, but money and art should be two different things.. though they aren't.. but they should be, and it should be up to the artists to see that.. art in a society can be have way more influence than many other factors in life. :)
Answer:

It's the ballooning costs of films that make it so important how well they do. If Terminator 3, with a budget of $170 million (before marketing!) only makes $100 million, it will be a disaster because if it does the same internationally, they'll lose a fortune. The studio makes only a percentage of the gross and you can be sure Arnold gets a chunk of that.
It's also why every event film has to be a sequel or remake or TV or comic adaptation or other known property. They're even making films of theme park rides now - Haunted Mansion and Pirates of The Carribean, though I confess the latter is my must see film of the summer because I love pirates (and Keira Knightley).
Answer:

I'd say Terminator 3 will have to make at least $200 Million just in the US to be considered a success.
Answer:

I have no problem with where the material is sourced from - it's what the filmmakers do with it! As you say Ol' Blue Eyes, "Pirates of The Carribean" looks to be great fun - it matters not a jot that it's based on a theme park ride.
I think you've hit the nail on the head by citing T3 as an example! (and dp2's post confirms this!)
The fact that we know what it cost and what it needs to make to be a 'hit' weeks before it's released means that ultimately no matter how well the film does we'll be comparing it to the bottom line.
If it breaks even it'll only have done so-so business in our minds and be deemed a disappointment and all of this will come higher up the ladder or importance than any artistic merit the film may have.
It could be argued that the third film in any franchise has no artistic merit anyway and is motivated purely by profit but I think that does a disservice to the talented artists (and I stress the word artists) behind the scenes of any film.
As tj_director says art and commerce should be separate entities.
"The Hulk" will now always exist as a movie regardless of it's initial box-office success or failure. In fifty years it could be a highly regarded artistic achievement, whereas I suspect something like "Titantic" will be nothing more than a footnote.
Answer:

Originally posted by Richie
I really pity the kids of today - "urgh! no! we can't go see that film coz it didn't break the opening day record for a sequel opening in the 1st week of June set by the film that came out on Tuesday!"
:lol: Yeah, ’cos that’s how all the "kidz" I know make their movie decisions.
It’s information. It’s not good or bad, it just is.
Originally posted by Richie
What other industry allows this kind of thing to happen?
Every other industry. Cost to profit ratios, sales predictions etc. are the cornerstone of business all over the world. It’s incredibly naïve to think movies should be any different.
BTW, if money and art were seperate we wouldn’t even be having this discussion as no-one would be funding these films in the first place. Movies are a business and box office has always been of paramount importance, all that’s changed in the last 10-15 years is that we too now have access to that info. Would you rather we didn’t? Does it honestly influence your decisions, because it doesn’t mine. I’ll still go see Hulk regardless.
Answer:

I'm not obsessed with Box Office figures at all. I'll see a film if it looks interesting. Even if it has been slated i still want to make my mind up.
Answer:

Originally posted by jonathan.e
:lol: Yeah, ’cos that’s how all the "kidz" I know make their movie decisions.
It’s information. It’s not good or bad, it just is.
So, you're telling me that a widely reported (yet unconfirmed!)70% drop in box-office business doesn't harm a film's earning capacity for the rest of it's run? And you're also telling me that the teenagers who make up much of a movie's core audience aren't highly aware of box-office data and movie discussion website just like this? (and you call me naïve!)
Originally posted by Richie
What other industry allows this kind of thing to happen?
Originally posted by jonathan.e
Every other industry. Cost to profit ratios, sales predictions etc. are the cornerstone of business all over the world. It’s incredibly naïve to think movies should be any different.
Yes but give me an example of another industry where large numbers of regular people unconnected to the day-to-day business of said industry have access to and voluntarily pour over the data every weekend.
Originally posted by jonathan.e
Movies are a business and box office has always been of paramount importance, all that’s changed in the last 10-15 years is that we too now have access to that info. Would you rather we didn’t? Does it honestly influence your decisions, because it doesn’t mine. I’ll still go see Hulk regardless. [/B]
As will I. I've never stated that boxoffice stats influence my viewing decisions in any way. I was merely asking in general terms why this information is of such interest to people that whole websites & publications are dedicted to it and just why 'we', the general public (who are not investors or studio employees & do not therefore have anything to personally lose or gain) have free access to this information before it's even been officially confirmed.
Answer:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Richie
This weekend I've just had enough of this obsession with a film's "box office".
The Hulk is getting written off because it's dropping fast and it's not making as much money as films X, Y & Z - and not only that, it's not doing it in a shorter period of time - goddamit!
Actually it's broken 100 million in 10 days which is quite an impressive feat......if it weren't for the fact that the film cost $137 million + millions more in advertising and prints. Of course this matters to the audience as it's the audience who are lining up to buy tickets......but not the same audience who are, for example, giving Finding Nemo $10 million + weekends week in-week-out.
The Hulk has dropped down very badly from last weekend and the "estimates" are usually spot-on--that's why they're released by Exhibitor Relations on a Sunday!
Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle is a 'disaster' because estimates show it has a smaller opening weekend than the first film. :nuts:
To quote Box Office Guru:
"To be fair, the first weekend of November [re: Charlies Angels] is a less competitive frame than late June so an event pic can truly dominate. However, given Full Throttle's bigger marketing campaign, more theaters, higher ticket prices, and added starpower of Demi Moore and Bernie Mac, most industry obervers had expected a more powerful launch. These days, numerous event sequels are given stronger marketing pushes and open higher than their predecessors like Rush Hour 2 (up 104% from the first), The Mummy Returns (up 57%), X2 (up 57%), 2 Fast 2 Furious (up 26%), MI2 (up 25%), and Austin Powers in Goldmember (up 33%)."
Proof is in the pudding BUT that doesn't necessarily reflect on the film's, ahem, "quality".
Just WHAT is going on with Hollywood cinema today?
Does EVERY film released have to top the previous one otherwise it's deemed a failure?
Not necessarily but as ticket prices rise and the market changes, these things are taken into consideration. A $100 million opening 10 years ago would have been unthinkable. Research, using Box Office Mojo, the films released between 80-89 and see how many "blockbusters" there are. Certainly not as many compared to recent years. And compare a few of the summer openings then to the summer openings we have now ($50 million + several weekends in a row). It's become a trend to have tent-pole pics do most of their business in the first 2 or 3 weeks, some fade, some hold--that's just the nature of the beast.
A film can only make so much money in so much time - why is a $38 million opening so disappointing? It's a LOT of money!
It is a lot of money but it's dissapointing by industry standards and by what the film *could* have done. Next weekend it may hold very well--it may not, it just remains to be seen.
There are many, many more 'event' pics every week now (and one could argue simply far too many new movies fullstop) and thanks to film-goers' constant tracking of 'the numbers', films are dead before they even get a chance it seems!
And that's surely part of the fun (during the summer season anyway)--to track the numbers that is. I would disagree with the point that you think film-goers watch "the numbers" to decide whether they want to go. I'd rather go with the opinion that they will go to see a flick depending on word-of-mouth, critical review and - yes - whether they want to see it!
How many people here in the UK will now decide not to see The Hulk because it's 'bombed' in the US? (and the fact that $100 is now a bomb is preposterous!)
It hasn't "bombed", but it is dissapointing to see it drop by so much and that demonstrates that this picture does not have the kind of legs other pictures have (Finding Nemo being the best example of the summer thus far). In fact, I might go as far as to say The Hulk will perform better internationally than domestically and this can certainly be bailed out by some top performances across the world already!!!!!!!
Imho studios need to go back to the days when movies were actually 'magic' and revenues, budgets, star salaries and film-making secrets were not in the public domain before anyone had even had a chance to see the film in question.
Sadly that's something that will never happen.
Answer:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Richie
So, you're telling me that a widely reported (yet unconfirmed!)70% drop in box-office business doesn't harm a film's earning capacity for the rest of it's run?
It's the very same audience that has caused a 70% in the film's takings and this is mainly attributed to the fact that the core audience rushed out on opening day but also, it appears, that - like Eyes Wide Shut/A.I - reports suggest this isn't a typical mainstream film and therefore the audiences aren't responding to it as well as they could be doing. The figures reflect what is happening, they're not making people say don't go out and watch the film!!!
And your emphasis that the 70% drop is "unconfirmed" and therefore shouldn't be taken seriously (presumably) holds little weight as box office estimates are rough guide points and usually holds up when actual figures are released. Even if Hulk made a few more million dollars (or less!), it still doesn't change the fact that this weekend's total *is* dissapointing in light of the title's durability in the market-place. That, of course, has nothing to do with the quality of the film or whether the film will do well internationally or in the ancillary markets (DVD, etc.) -- it's simply evident to see that the audience for the film has more than sliced in half!
And you're also telling me that the teenagers who make up much of a movie's core audience aren't highly aware of box-office data and movie discussion website just like this? (and you call me naïve!)
If I was a teenage boy, I think I'd be more influenced by what my friends had to say than what a box office site had to say! The box office simply reflects the [financial] success and failure of a film and of course never rules out a film finding its home elsewhere (cult titles such as Donnie Darko, Reservoir Dogs spring to mind). To imagine that the masses study box office takings and decide to watch a film from there is naive!)
Yes but give me an example of another industry where large numbers of regular people unconnected to the day-to-day business of said industry have access to and voluntarily pour over the data every weekend.
The UK Top 40, every Sunday from 4pm on BBC Radio 1.
Selectaaaaaaaaaa!
;)
As will I. I've never stated that boxoffice stats influence my viewing decisions in any way. I was merely asking in general terms why this information is of such interest to people that whole websites & publications are dedicted to it and just why 'we', the general public (who are not investors or studio employees & do not therefore have anything to personally lose or gain) have free access to this information before it's even been officially confirmed.
Do you imagine there being some miraclous mistake and The Hulk actually took $30-$40 million instead? I'm afraid that's highly unlikely.
Box office stats are of interest to people just like any stats for anything is of general interest. And there is interest to be had in reading the figures (just like reading the figures for how many books J.K Rowling has sold or what's the best-selling chocolate bar of 2002 or whatever). This weekend it was nice to see the crowds noticing a British film and the crowds taking to Finding Nemo and - yup! - even Bruce Almighty. The stats can also reveal a lot about an audience's viewing habits and suggests that this weekend there were better things to do than sit in a big dark room with 100 hundred other people ;)
The general public is interested in facts and figures -- whatever they may be and the fact that we're talking movies (like music and sport - one of the most popular past-times of Joe Public) there is always going to be interest in what succeeds, what fails and what opens big.
But of course a true film fan knows that there is a lot more to a film than how much money it makes........but if a good movie makes money and gets noticed--why that's even better!
:D
Answer:

i find if the movie 'bombs' then there is a better chance its actualy a good film.
Answer:

cheers DrX :thumbs:
I had a feeling the UK Top 40 would get a mention! ;)
What you said about "tent-pole pics do most of their business in the first 2 or 3 weeks" is exactly what I was relating to the music industry. Hype it up, unleash it big, it had better do the biz because it's a one shot only deal - unlike the old method of building an audience (both with movies & music).
I do understand why it has to be this way these days (piracy / more competition etc) I just think it's a shame.
btw just in case there's any misunderstanding, I was referring to the Hulk 'bombing' as a possible perceived notion that someone in the UK could have of it (thanks to all the available info) before it ever reaches cinemas here.
Answer:

Originally posted by GAmbrose
I think overall that blockbuster films have improved in quality in the last couple of years
I think the complete opposite to be honest. There's been the odd good film (Signs, Minority Report) but generally most of the so-called blockbusters have been complete damp quibs as far as I'm concerned.
I don't *we're* that concerned about box office taking over here - it's the opening week of the American market that seems to be important.
Answer:

Originally posted by Richie
So, you're telling me that a widely reported (yet unconfirmed!)70% drop in box-office business doesn't harm a film's earning capacity for the rest of it's run? And you're also telling me that the teenagers who make up much of a movie's core audience aren't highly aware of box-office data and movie discussion website just like this? (and you call me naïve!)
You seem to be ignoring the underlying reason for a precipitous drop such as this: Word of mouth. People who have been, have told their friends it isn’t very good. Reading between the lines of your post you seem to be advocating some sort of cloak of secrecy so that these figures are not available to the public. The studios would be much happier with this state of affairs in the same way they’d like nothing but positive critical reviews. The figures are merely a reflection of the public’s critical opinion of the movie influenced by word of mouth. To assume people only go and see successful movies, is to ignore the reason they are successful - because they do what they’re supposed to: Entertain, which "seems" to be something The Hulk isn’t doing.
Originally posted by Richie
Yes but give me an example of another industry where large numbers of regular people unconnected to the day-to-day business of said industry have access to and voluntarily pour over the data every weekend.
As pointed out above, the Top 40 + any number of Book charts in fact anything that involves consumer items. There’s a chart based on sales figures for it somewhere.
Originally posted by Richie
I was merely asking in general terms why this information is of such interest to people that whole websites & publications are dedicted to it...
You’re surprised that BO figures have their own websites/magazines??!!? There are websites and magazines devoted to bus-ticket collecting and people obsessed with test card transmissions. In comparison box office figures are fascinating and tell "us" about our own viewing habits so it’s not surprising they’re of interest to Joe Public as well as studio bods.
Originally posted by Richie
I've never stated that boxoffice stats influence my viewing decisions in any way......and just why 'we', the general public (who are not investors or studio employees & do not therefore have anything to personally lose or gain) have free access to this information before it's even been officially confirmed.
So you admit it won’t influence your decision to see the movie but you assume it will other people’s? Isn’t this a little patronising? And we do lose or gain in the long run because our box office dollars determine what movies are made in future, in fact it’s the major overriding factor in determining what makes it to the screen at all. If the public choose not to see The Hulk because it’s not a good movie then the money that Universal might spend on a sequel could go to make 2 or 3 other better movies as a result of the comparative financial failure of the movie.
Answer:

I personally couldn't give a toss about box office figures...
I have a UGC pass so I hardly contribute to them anyway....
If I fancy a film I'll go see it regardless of the figures....
Answer:

Originally posted by Wolfman
I personally couldn't give a toss about box office figures...
I have a UGC pass so I hardly contribute to them anyway....
If I fancy a film I'll go see it regardless of the figures....
Whilst you're too busy getting fat on all that expensive cinema-chain food
:D
hehe!
j/k
Answer:

I will see a film if it interests me. I don't give a toss about box office. I think the average person that will only watches successful films are those that watch succesful TV such as Big Brother, Pop Idol and soaps - notice the correlation between the 2?
Answer: With the rare exception, they are complete and utter crap
Answer:

I do like it when 'a film from over here is doing rather well over there', i.e. Bend It Like Beckham