http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/20/movies/20MOVI.html

Can we repost whole article? Says 6 versions of Kill Bill are planned!!

OS ANGELES, April 19 — The other day the chairman of 20th Century Fox, Jim Gianopulos, said he got a call from a lawyer friend. The friend said it was an anniversary of the firm and asked where he could get 100 DVD copies of the cult Fox movie "Office Space." The film made only $10 million at the box office but has become a hit on DVD. No one at Fox pretends to know why, but the film's success is another big drop in the river of DVD cash now flowing into Hollywood's coffers.

Not since the advent of the videocassette in the mid-1980's has the movie industry enjoyed such a windfall from a new product. And just as video caused a seismic shift two decades ago, the success of the DVD is altering priorities and the balance of power in the making of popular culture. And industry players, starting with the Writers Guild, are lining up to claim their share.

There's good cause. Between January and mid-March this year, Americans spent $1.78 billion at the box office. But in the same period they spent $4.8 billion — more than $3 billion more — to buy and rent DVD's and videocassettes..

Little wonder then that studio executives now calibrate the release dates of DVD's with the same care used for opening weekends, as seen by Miramax's strategic release of "Kill Bill: Vol. 1" a few days before the theatrical release of "Kill Bill: Vol. 2." (The DVD made $40 million its first day out.)

Studios now spend comparable amounts of money on DVD and theatrical marketing campaigns. Disney spent an estimated $50 million marketing the "Finding Nemo" DVD last year, said officials at Pixar, which made the film. It was money well spent. The DVD took in $431 million domestically, about $100 million more than the domestic box office. DVD has resuscitated canceled or nearly canceled television series like "The Family Guy" and "24," and has helped small art movies like "Donnie Darko" win rerelease in theaters. It is also beginning to affect the kinds of movies being made, as DVD revenues figure heavily in green-light decisions and are used as a perk to woo craft-conscious movie directors.

"There's not a sector of the entertainment industry to which DVD is not a significant, if not the dominant, contributor of revenue," said Scott Hettrick, editor in chief of DVD Exclusive, a trade paper, pointing to the movie and television libraries being released on DVD. Even in the ailing music industry, he noted, music DVD's are an area of growth.

"This is an unprecedented, huge influx of new money into the motion picture business," Dan Petrie Jr., president of the Writers Guild of America, West, said of the DVD boom. Union negotiators are demanding higher royalty payments in contract talks under way with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, which represents the studios. Whatever deal is finally struck when the contract runs out on May 2 is expected to be followed by all the other Hollywood guilds.

While few dispute that DVD's are low-cost, high-profit items for the studios, the studios say they need every penny to survive in a time of dwindling profit margins, and with the menace of piracy looming large. The average movie now costs $64 million to make and another $39 million to market, according to the Motion Picture Association of America.

"In the last five years maybe 6 pictures out of 1,000 recouped their cost in the theatrical marketplace," said Nick Counter, president of the studio alliance. "Today the hits have to make up for all the losses."

For bigger-budget movies the DVD revenue has become critical. Nowadays, "basically the movies are commercials for the DVD's," observed John Lesher, an agent for the Endeavor talent agency who represents leading directors like Walter Salles, Paul Thomas Anderson and David O. Russell. Movies with budgets over $100 million now commonly just break even at the box office.

Stacey Snider, chairwoman of Universal Studios, said she had just asked her executives to analyze more closely the breakdown of profits in terms of the DVD revenues to figure out the changing model of the industry.

The old Hollywood model of needing to recoup three times the production cost at the box office to make a profit is long gone. But many are asking: What is the new model?

The answer to that may lie with a little-known movie called "Office Space" (1999). The satire by Mike Judge, co-creator of the animated television series "King of the Hill," cost 20th Century Fox about $10 million to make, and took in just $10 million at the box office. But on DVD the movie has become a hit, with the studio so far selling 2.5 million units, well over $40 million worth.

There are other examples of surprising windfalls. The Lion's Gate comedy "Van Wilder" was renamed "National Lampoon's Van Wilder" and has unexpectedly become a hit on DVD, where it sits alphabetically next to other National Lampoon movies.

A moderate hit like the DreamWorks comedy "Old School" starring Will Ferrell took in $73 million at the box office, but made an astounding $143.5 million on DVD.

Of course, even before DVD some films found larger audiences on video than at the box office; DVD has amplified the effect and the profits.

The format has another draw, a creative one. Directors now invest a lot of time into putting extra material into the DVD version, and the studios can improve their relationships with directors by creating special editions of their movies with hours of extra features. Peter Jackson added 43 minutes to the extended DVD of "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers" (New Line).

But that does not mean the studios do not wring every cent from each movie. Miramax is planning to release a half-dozen different DVD editions related to "Kill Bill."

(Read the article for the full story)

I think they were exaggerating about Kill Bill. Miramax also stated there would be multiple releases of Gangs of NY and Chicago.

I don't think that they're exagerating; just misinforming. Most likely, that $40mil includes all stores that stock up on the title. Just because Best Buy puts, say 100, per store, doesn't mean that they sold 100 on the first day. So, yes, Miramax did probably sell $40mil worth. But in the same manner, they'll probably sell a $.5mil worth next week. That's certainly not chump change either.

Quotes, please?

I can see six releases of Kill Bill -

Kill Bill Vol. 1 Barebones (Already OUt)
Kill Bill Vol. 2 Barebones

Kill Bill Vol. 1 Special Edition (Probably come out when Kill Bill Vol.2 Barebones comes out)
Kill Bill Vol. 2 Special Edition (Somepoint in future)

Kill Billl Re-edited Together
Kill Bill Special Edition Re-Edited Together (Probably international version?)

Interesting article. I didn't realize how much more revenue DVD brings over box office.

Perhaps this will eventually bring an Office Space SE?

Only time will tell.

which is why movies continue to suck at an alarming rate....and it only seems to be getting worse.....

Yes, but the "exaggeration" he was referring to was that there would be six releases, not the also-exaggerated (but in, as you say, a harder to define way) grosses of the DVD.

I wonder how Mike Judge feels that his movie is *always* the example of a movie which failed at the box office (even though it broke even) and then became a hit on video.

That's an out and out lie.

I'll be kind and say that the writer was just misinformed; it was released as a National Lampoon movie, but it wasn't exclusively referred to as "National Lampoon's", partially because the brand name was having difficulty at the time. But it was publicized, theatrically, as a National Lampoon movie.

But, also, movies like that *always* do better on video. I read articles like this about 'Mallrats' before DVD ever came along.

Considering it only cost $24, I tend to wonder what the other 5 out of 1000 were.

Studios know that movies do not break even at the boxoffice. They know that there is International, Pay Per View, VHS, DVD, Toys, Books, Music, Product Placement, TV...

If the major studios released how much a movie made 2 years after it was released, we would all find that the studios are ranking in the cash.

No tears no to flow for the studios.

I know this thread was started first, but since this other thread has the full article, maybe we should close this one or combine the two or something?

Well, besides old school, we have lets see.

Fellowship of the Ring
Two Towers
Return of the King

So that leaves two to go. I'll be brave and venture that both Pirates of the Carribean and Finding Nemo made back theirs costs. So thats the six.

Oooops. Wait. We're forgetting about this years biggest title so far, The Passion of the Christ. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that it has made back its original cost (but only just barely ). So there is seven.

Oh wait. I thought there were only six....

Most films will make back their costs once they hit DVD/Cable etc. Even Waterworld is in profit.

In a few years maybe even the Alamo will make back its vast costs (Although im sure it will be too late to save the people whose heads will roll after its total failure at the Box Office).

2003 movies that almost made back all of their money on the 1st weekend it was release (High percentage of the 1st weekend cash goes back to the Studio). This does not take into account Marketing cost.

1. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
2. Finding Nemo
3. Passion of Christ (Opps, I did not mean to add this in, but I do not want to take the time to renumber the rest)
4. Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (only 42 million 1st weekend, but it made $305,413,918 in the USA. The movie did cost $140 million to make, but I am sure it made back what the studios paid out)
5. The Matrix Reloaded
6. Bruce Almighty
7. X2: X-Men United
8. Elf
9. Cheaper by the Dozen
10. Spy Kids 3D: Game Over
11. Freaky Friday
12. Scary Movie 3
13. Freddy vs. Jason
14. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre
15. Old School
16. Holes
17. Bad Santa

This does not relect the amount that is made from the International market.

To say only 7 out of 1,000 films made money in the theaters over the past 5 years is a complete lie.

Technically, 'The Passion of the Christ' probably shouldn't count, as no studio put any money in on that. (Same with "Greek Wedding".) But the studio guy didn't actually specify "studio movies".

Even so, the charge was and is ludicrous. I love it when studios play those number games, though, that somehow 'Waterworld' is in profit and 'The Postman' was a hit ('cause they have to keep Costner happy), but 'Forrest Gump' still hasn't made a dime (so they don't have to pay Winston Groom).

I was kidding when I said "the other five", though; my point was, it's absurd to claim there are only six, but especially absurd when the author names, in the article, 'Kill Bill', 'Finding Nemo, 'Old School', and 'Lord of the Rings', which are six movies which made significantly more than their cost back. ("Kill Bill" was pure profit before V2 came out on Friday.)

Sad to say, but Groom had to take Paramount to court to get his money (Paramount, what a bunch of low lifes - no wonder the are not doing very well):

http://www.joecliffordfaust.com/page...rs/writer2.htm
And Winston Groom wrote a sequel to FORREST GUMP because Paramount treated him the way that Hollywood treats most writers: they screwed him out of millions of dollars that he was due by saying that the movie (which grossed something like $350 million domestically) didn't make any money. He sued and Paramount settled up by buying the rights to the sequel for millions of dollars that he should have otherwise gotten for free.

Looks like he got paid a bunch of money for the Sequel, so Paramount would not have to admit to doing wrong.

Paramount should be sued for making him create that 'sequel' novel. Man, that's a few hours of my life I'd like to get back.

^I found Gump & Co. to be quite funny. Are they planning on making it a movie?

Does this have anything to do with the fact that the 994 of those 1000 suck, Nick?

Anyone else find it ironic that the guy's name is Counter?