PDA

View Full Version : Who cares if movie Y makes more money than movie X - what does it mean?



Tycho
07-12-2006, 04:07 PM
OK, in the news on the homepage, POTC surpassed ROTS for a Monday record.

So what?

And Titanic back in the day was hailed as this or that. Harry Potter has its moments.

Superman is being put down because it didn't outperform anything. Spider-Man on the other hand has made waves at the box office.

So what does it all matter?

Does it somehow validate your interests as being more worthy if SW makes more than any other film ever?

Does rising movie costs effect how a show performs? If it's $12 a ticket by the time Miami Vice hits theaters and that "makes more money than SW," does that mean more people are interested in Miami Vice than SW? Are movie tickets counted, instead of prices? Then the figures adjusted? (Such as what would have ROTS made if the tickets were $12 a seat compared to Scary Movie 9 which may come out when tickets actually ARE $12 a seat.

If you're in the movie business, I can see you very concerned about numbers - YOUR numbers. Does the money you're spending to make your movie come back to you or sink like Waterworld? If you make a profit, how much justifies the amount of work or stress involved in creating the film? For example, Brandon Lee's death in the filming of The Crow was a pretty expensive price to pay I imagine.

With ticket prices continuing to rise, I'm sure Teletubbies: The Movie will make more than ROTS eventually. So what does that prove? Will you become insecure with your hobby because Darth Vader gets trumped by a TeleTubby?

What the heck is this fascination with box office numbers?

jjreason
07-12-2006, 04:45 PM
Pretty simple, Tycho - it gauges the interest. If a movie is expected to make $X-million but falls short, people didn't like it (even if they did, they didn't - if you catch my drift) and it the producers will shy away from going back to that franchise, or possibly even genre of movie.

I'm pretty sure Superman has made enough already to warrant a second chapter - and it's going to make another bundle when the DVD arrives.

If a movie, Spider-Man for example, earns way more than they expected - it can change the market (heck, it did! Look at all the comic movies that have come out since).

When Superman performs less-admirably than expected, the researchers are going to say "people might be getting sick of superheros - we need to scrap projects L,M,N,O and P, and focus on the big names".

Oh, and from what I understand they DO keep track of ticket sales as well as total earnings. The comparisons betweeen all-time successful money-making movies is often done by scaled earnings or total numbers of tickets sold. From what I understand, it is believed "Gone with the Wind" was seen by many, many more people than viewed even Titanic, but they weren't keeping tabs on attendances back in the 30s the way they do these days.

To me, the money a movie makes matters not. I care about word of mouth, and more specifically the opinions of people whom I know like the same types of things I like. If the board here likes "Apes from Venus", I might consider checking it out even if I woulnd't have chosen to go on my own. Conversely, if everyone hated a movie I was going to see, it might sway me to wait until I can rent it.

JediTricks
07-12-2006, 05:10 PM
Pretty simple, Tycho - it gauges the interest. If a movie is expected to make $X-million but falls short, people didn't like it (even if they did, they didn't - if you catch my drift) and it the producers will shy away from going back to that franchise, or possibly even genre of movie.Exactly.


I'm pretty sure Superman has made enough already to warrant a second chapter - and it's going to make another bundle when the DVD arrives.Someone just posted in the SR thread that WB is not yet sure of that, the movie hasn't made back its $265mil budget yet, it's only made $183mil worldwide and it's current box office has slowed to a crawl - even with the inevitable home market, it may only break even (keep in mind that they also spent between $40 and $80mil on marketing).


If a movie, Spider-Man for example, earns way more than they expected - it can change the market (heck, it did! Look at all the comic movies that have come out since).I continue to argue that it's actually 1998's Blade that got this comic movie trend started. Plus, Blade is a good example of what you're talking about, an R-rated $45mil movie that made $70mil domestically and another $61mil overseas. What's funny is that Blade is a moderately-budgeted film even then, it started the modern comic movie revolution, but quickly studios had to funnel tons of cash into their movies' budgets to bring them up to quality, thus the dream of the mid-budget comic movie was never fully realized again by the big studios.



Oh, and from what I understand they DO keep track of ticket sales as well as total earnings. The comparisons betweeen all-time successful money-making movies is often done by scaled earnings or total numbers of tickets sold. From what I understand, it is believed "Gone with the Wind" was seen by many, many more people than viewed even Titanic, but they weren't keeping tabs on attendances back in the 30s the way they do these days.Adjusted for inflation, Gone with the Wind would be the top draw with $1.3billion in ticket grosses, Star Wars would be right behind with $1.1billion, then The Sound of Music, ET, The Ten Commandments, Titanic, Jaws, Doctor Zhivago, The Exorcist, and Snow White & the Seven Dwarves rounding out the top 10 -- some others of interest to us: ESB is #12 with $628mil adjusted, ROTJ is #14 with $602mil, Raiders of the Lost ark is #16 with $564mil, Jurassic Park #17 with $551mil, Ep 1 is #19 with $543mil, Ep 3 is #55 with $380mil, and Ep 2 is #81 with $342mil. And of course, all that is about how many tickets they sold with their price adjusted for inflation, so this list is about movie interest rather than actual grosses.

Tycho
07-12-2006, 05:30 PM
Thanks for the stats and explanations with both of your posts, guys.

It's interesting to note that AOTC is the "least popular" SW movie if we went by ticket sales.

That E1 outranks E3 is because of all the hype "the new Star Wars generation got."

But do the SE's count towards pushing the OT so far up to the top? I can see ANH (plain old regular flavor) doing it because NOTHING was comparable to it at the time and its box office take warranted it staying in theaters for a seriously long time for a movie (especially compared to nowadays).

ROTS did pretty well though. It opened May 25th I think, and when I got out of the hospital in September, it was still playing in the theaters so I got to go back and see it on the big screen for my 12th time.

JediTricks
07-12-2006, 05:47 PM
That E1 outranks E3 is because of all the hype "the new Star Wars generation got."I still argue that for all its flaws TPM is still the most Star Wars-y of the prequels, it's the only one with half a hint of the Star Wars magic.


It's interesting to note that AOTC is the "least popular" SW movie if we went by ticket sales.I thought so as well. I think it was backlash for the general audience feeling "duped" by the over-the-top hype surrounding Ep 1.


But do the SE's count towards pushing the OT so far up to the top? I can see ANH (plain old regular flavor) doing it because NOTHING was comparable to it at the time and its box office take warranted it staying in theaters for a seriously long time for a movie (especially compared to nowadays).The SEs do count, but only for ANH was it influential. ANH:SE brought in about 1/3rd of the film's total take -- even without the SEs, ANH is still way above TPM in total ticket sales.


ROTS did pretty well though. It opened May 25th I think, and when I got out of the hospital in September, it was still playing in the theaters so I got to go back and see it on the big screen for my 12th time.It opened May 18th and closed Oct 20th, 22 weeks total. It took Ep 3 almost 2 months to make its final million though, from Aug 26th to Oct 20th - how it stayed in theaters making under $100k for the whole nation a day is beyond me, on weekdays it'd make under $50k, and Oct 1st was the last day it made over $10k in a single day, making just $1,686 in its next-to-last day.

El Chuxter
07-12-2006, 05:50 PM
Spawn pre-dated Blade. Essentially, Spawn begat Blade, which begat The Matrix (with some heavy ripping off of Dark City mixed in).

Slicker
07-12-2006, 05:51 PM
*Han voice* I care.

El Chuxter
07-12-2006, 05:54 PM
You should care, Tycho. The fact that you don't really concerns me, and makes me lose a lot of respect for you.


j/k
;)

Tycho
07-12-2006, 05:58 PM
I still argue that for all its flaws TPM is still the most Star Wars-y of the prequels, it's the only one with half a hint of the Star Wars magic.



Please explain. I thought ROTS was the most "Star Wars-y."

TPM borrowed off so many of the OT's themes: a ground, air, and lightsaber duel at the end (like ROTJ), the Naboo fighting the droids in the palace was a lot similar to the stormtroopers fighting fleet troopers on the Tantive, the podrace harkened towards speederbikes - that sort of thing. But that may or may not be a good thing. ROTS had ROTJ elements to it as well - but it was a totally more unique movie and I liked seeing something so different.

El Chuxter
07-12-2006, 06:00 PM
It's the ducks, Tycho. It's always the ducks.

Tycho
07-12-2006, 06:08 PM
Was that Howard the Duck in the water there when the Bongo emerges in Theed?

JediTricks
07-12-2006, 08:31 PM
Spawn pre-dated Blade. Essentially, Spawn begat Blade, which begat The Matrix (with some heavy ripping off of Dark City mixed in).Well, Spawn sucked and barely made its money back (it cost $40mil and made $54mil, and that doesn't factor in the marketing the studio did for it) and never was at the top of the charts (its opening weekend it was #2), so I dunno if you can say that anything... "spawned" from it. (Oooh, I know, that was bad!)


Tycho, I've explained it a few times in the Prequel forums, but I'm kinda burned out right now.

General_Grievous
07-12-2006, 08:39 PM
Shame about Superman Returns. It's being raped by POTC at the box office. But then again, the Marvel superheroes have better luck at the box office than the DC ones. They're also saying that Dead Man's Chest could dethrone Titanic. It's very possible, since it grossed $154 million in four days. I would love to see Titanic dethroned. That overrated piece of celluloid has been on top for eight years too long.

Ji'dai
07-12-2006, 09:21 PM
What the heck is this fascination with box office numbers? I used to follow box office revenues, Nielson ratings, and the various Billboard charts, but couldn't care less nowadays. A particular movie's box office success won't affect my decision to see it or change my opinion of the film after viewing it.

I guess it's no different than keeping track of your favorite ballplayer's stats and checking team standings during the season. Co-workers knew I was a SW fan and during the summer Episode I came out an office mate kept trying to needle me about news articles reporting how the film didn't make as much as the industry expected. I didn't invest in the film, didn't make it, so I didn't really care how much money Ep1 made or didn't make. It was almost as if she was talking about my favorite ballplayer's batting average slump.

As in sports, we kinda root for movies or TV shows we like and want them to succeed. We share a very success-driven culture and our statistical charts & ratings play an important part in gauging success.

decadentdave
07-12-2006, 10:07 PM
Please explain. I thought ROTS was the most "Star Wars-y."

TPM borrowed off so many of the OT's themes: a ground, air, and lightsaber duel at the end (like ROTJ), the Naboo fighting the droids in the palace was a lot similar to the stormtroopers fighting fleet troopers on the Tantive, the podrace harkened towards speederbikes - that sort of thing. But that may or may not be a good thing. ROTS had ROTJ elements to it as well - but it was a totally more unique movie and I liked seeing something so different.

I second that. I thought TPM was the most un-Star Wars-y of all the films in the saga. ROTS was the most Star Wars-y of the Prequels.



I continue to argue that it's actually 1998's Blade that got this comic movie trend started. Plus, Blade is a good example of what you're talking about, an R-rated $45mil movie that made $70mil domestically and another $61mil overseas. What's funny is that Blade is a moderately-budgeted film even then, it started the modern comic movie revolution, but quickly studios had to funnel tons of cash into their movies' budgets to bring them up to quality, thus the dream of the mid-budget comic movie was never fully realized again by the big studios.


Wrong, it was 1989's Batman that inaugurated the trend. Comic Book movies were immediately fast-tracked (most of them in development hell) including Sam Raimi's Darkman and The Shadow. Of course there were many failures including Dolph Lundgren's The Punisher, Captain America and Fantastic Four. The Flash and Batman the Animated Series zoomed to the small screen.

Oh and Dark City was 1998, one year before Matrix. Spawn came before (96 or 97?) and yes, it sucked.

El Chuxter
07-12-2006, 11:23 PM
Batman sort of started it, but there was a long dark time after Batman Returns.

Spawn may not have been the best, but it had some good points. Blade was essentially a perfection of what Spawn tried and got wrong.

And no one will ever convince me that The Matrix, while still a good movie, isn't a knockoff of Blade and Dark City.

2-1B
07-13-2006, 01:10 AM
ROTS came out May 19th. :)

JediTricks
07-13-2006, 02:51 PM
Wrong, it was 1989's Batman that inaugurated the trend. Comic Book movies were immediately fast-tracked (most of them in development hell) including Sam Raimi's Darkman and The Shadow. Of course there were many failures including Dolph Lundgren's The Punisher, Captain America and Fantastic Four. The Flash and Batman the Animated Series zoomed to the small screen.I dunno, '89 Batman brought us copycats like The Shadow and The Phantom, but those all bombed and were a different, less serious, over-the-top silly style than the current crop of comic movies. Blade was nothing like them, everything was serious and nasty and not trying to get the general audience or a toy franchise started, Blade also started this "superheroes in black leather" thing that the Matrix and then X-men continued.



Spawn may not have been the best, but it had some good points. Blade was essentially a perfection of what Spawn tried and got wrong.In what way does Spawn (the theatrical version) have good points, and in what way is Blade an extension of what Spawn was trying to do? I don't see it at all, besides the leads of both films being black, their styles, moods, action, everything's completely different.


And no one will ever convince me that The Matrix, while still a good movie, isn't a knockoff of Blade and Dark City.The Matrix uses some of the Dark City sets as well, since they were shot back to back at the same studio.



ROTS came out May 19th.That's correct, I typed the wrong number before. ROTS' opening day grossed $50mil which was the top opening day record until Pirates of the Carribean 2 opened last week.

Tycho
07-13-2006, 03:44 PM
Blade was an awesome movie. Its sequels were not bad either, though #2 was better than #3 - just like with X-men.

However, X2 was better than X1. The original Blade was the best one of that series.

As comparable to Spawn and The Matrix? Wesley Snipes plays a character that more people can latch onto as a hero (check him out in US Marshalls as well - oh and Passenger 57 - another good Snipes movie). I forgot who played Spawn but it doesn't ring a bell.

JediTricks
07-13-2006, 04:12 PM
Michael Jai White (no idea why I remember that) who owes everybody invovled with production on "Spawn" a firm beating for ruining his career.

General_Grievous
07-13-2006, 04:39 PM
Michael Jai White (no idea why I remember that) who owes everybody invovled with production on "Spawn" a firm beating for ruining his career.
Didn't that guy play Steve Urkel on "Family Matters"? :p

El Chuxter
07-13-2006, 04:52 PM
Spawn made an attempt to capture the look of the Spawn comic, which in its early days had lots of scenes in what would ordinarily be considered "the gutter" (Malebolgia laughing or a countdown being the most common). Compare to the film, which uses odd cuts with scenes like these. It didn't pull it off nearly as well as Hulk, but it was a worthy effort.

And both Spawn and Blade made extensive use of annoying camera tricks. :)

JediTricks
07-13-2006, 05:20 PM
Didn't that guy play Steve Urkel on "Family Matters"? :pThat's Jaleel White - and no, I don't know why I remember that either. :D

jjreason
07-13-2006, 05:21 PM
My problem with Spawn (as with Peter Jackson's King Kong) is that the effects just couldn't get me over the "suspension of disbelief" threshold - and I'm by no means the hardest guy to satisfy (ROTS, AOTC, Spider-Man did it - and they all had brief moments of dubious CG). The Spawn cartoons were WAY, WAY better than the movie - pity they never got finished.

I still stand by Spider-Man being the new "leader" in the comic book movie genre. There has always been interest, and movies would come out here and there, do moderately well then fade into obscurity. It was Spider-Man that got everyone's attention and made everyone jump into these last few years worth of expensive projects feet first.

El Chuxter
07-13-2006, 06:00 PM
Didn't X-Men pre-date Spider-Man by a couple of years?

General_Grievous
07-13-2006, 08:23 PM
Yeah, by about two years. X-Men came out in July 2000 and Spider-Man came out in May 2002.