Weekend Box Office (Jan 6th - Jan 8th) Thread
 

To, you know, discuss the weekend's BO numbers.

For Friday (taken from LeesMovieInfo.com):

1 Hostel 7.550 NEW 2195 3,440 7.55
2 Chronicles of Narnia 3.985 -58% 3514 1,134 236.36
3 Dick and Jane 3.760 -38% 3182 1,182 73.17
4 King Kong 3.445 -60% 3480 990 183.67
5 Cheaper...Dozen 2 2.319 -58% 3108 746 60.22
6 Munich 2.275 49% 1485 1,532 20.04
7 Rumor Has It 1.821 -43% 2766 658 31.36
8 Memoirs of a Geisha 1.810 -34% 1589 1,139 35.58
9 Brokeback Mountain 1.746 - 484 3,607 18.45
10 The Ringer 1.499 -38% 1688 888 24.93

Amazing ranking for Bloodrayne, all things considered. The original theater count was listed at 2,000... wound up being released in 985. Smart move by whoever decided that.

...and now back to my Now and Then, Here and There marathon.

I'm surprised at Hostel's take.

With all the hype, I'm not.

I saw a trailer for Hostel before Saw II and thought it was one of those "Please Shut Off Your Cell Phone" ads due to the way it was presented. Then realized what it was a minute later.

I honestly haven't seen a single TV ad for this movie, which is odd but then I don't get Viacom channels, which I'm guessing it was advertised on the most.

I enjoyed dinner with friends last night, and when talk came to movies, they all expressed a great desire to see "Quentin Tarantino's new movie."

That might explain part of HOSTEL's nice take. We'll see if it holds for the weekend.

FilmJerk.com has received word that a number of prints for Romar's initial release, Uwe Boll's "BloodRayne," have been misdelivered to theatres not booked with the film, if prints have even been delivered at all. One theatre employee says their print of "BloodRayne" was originally shown as being cancelled by the company handling print delivery for Romar, before being located in the delivery company's system. The theatre will now get their print of "BloodRayne" sometime Saturday morning, wiping out the all important opening day ticket and concession sales.

The problems, according to another source at a major exhibitor, may be that Romar, helping to keep their costs down, has only one person handling distribution. As a former employee of a independent distribution company and has friends who work distribution at major studios, I know firsthand you need more than a single individual working in distribution. There is a reason why every major company that handles wide theatrical releases has their own distribution division, filled with dozens of people who work specific zones all across the nation, making sure any problems are handled quickly and effeciently.

However, after speaking with James Schramm, the very affable CEO of Romar, he assures me that while there were some problems with print misdelivery (a few theatres that were once tentatively booked with the film received prints they should not have), those instances were quite minor and that the "BloodRayne" release has gone off incredibly well. Mr. Schramm told me by phone that Romar has almost two dozen people working distribution, and will be adding ten more by the end of 2006. He also states one of those new people will be a highly respected industry veteran with more than twenty years experience at a major studio, whose appointment will be announced in the coming weeks.

Schramm confirmed for me that Romar is quite stabile, and they already have fifteen films scheduled for wide release over the next three years, including Uwe Boll's next film, "Dungeon Siege," set for a December bow. "We're not going anywhere," Schramm said. This is good to hear, because what they are offering could lead to a re-emergence of truly independent cinema unseen since the last great independent distribution age of the 1980s.

www.filmjerk.com

That made me chuckle.

And from the Friday "ouch!" file...

GRANDMA'S BOY $1,100,000
BLOODRAYNE $450,000

Doris Roberts is box office poison.

Same here... nothing at all. I'm curious where people have seen TV ads.

Comedy Central has been showing Hostel ads non-stop in the evenings. I believe FX has too, but not 100% on that one.

Looks like Brokeback will once again have the highest per screen average.

I saw some ads for Hostel on G4, and I rarely watch G4. They also interviewed Eli Roth on Attack of the Show.

Makes sense since it's in the fewest theaters. :)

It finally opened in Madison and is playing on only two screens at one of the least nice theaters in town (no stadium seating, less than great sound system). It's selling out every showing and my wife and I had to buy tickets for the showing after the one we had come for.

Great film, probably my choice for Best Picture.

That doesn't mean anything... tons of movies open in few theaters and barely make any money...

They didn't list Match Point yet. It averaged $66,179 on 8 screens last weekend...

So the whole "Kong will pick up after Christmas and it will have legs" argument is lost. Looks like Kong turned out to be a dissapointment for Universal.

Do you really need surround sound for Brokeback Mountain? :confused:

It did about as well as anyone expected it to after those first few weeks, which is that it will make over $200 Million in the US, and probably around $500 Million worldwide. I think they'll be able to keep the electicity on over at Universal.

Maybe so, but that still doesn't make Universal thrilled with these returns.

With the budget and profit deals they made... KONG just ain't producing the ape love as was expected.

I surmised, after viewing KK, that KK's legs would be short and hairy at the box office (due to running time, a bloated screenplay which overstayed its welcome by about an hour). It just wasn't conducive to repeat viewing, plus these days of shorter DVD release window doesn't offer any additional incentive to get off your butt to go see it at the movie theaters.

Not shocked that Hostel is number one, but I'm a bit surprised that Kong fell behind Fun with Dick & Jane. How is it THAT movie is having legs? I'm hearing no real-life buzz about it one way or another.

Fun with Dick and Jane has a story that people can relate to (corporate greed soaking regular employees pension funds, etc.), and I would guess the word of mouth is making this point so that other people then go see it.

Full Report

1) Hostel $20,100,000

2) The Chronicles of Narnia $15,427,000
$247,561,000

3) King Kong $12,466,000
$192,522,000

4) Fun with Dick and Jane $12,200,000
$81,359,000

5) Cheaper by the Dozen 2 $8,300,000
$66,421,000

6) Munich $7,455,000
$25,239,000

7) Memoirs of a Geisha $6,000,000
$39,751,000

8) Rumor Has It $5,881,000
$35,370,000

9) Brokeback Mountain $5,750,000
$22,460,000

10) The Family Stone $4,625,000
$53,193,000

It's a silly comedy in a marketplace packed with fantasy and apes.

HP out of the top 10, that sucks, it had a good run though.

My local Cinemark put Hostel in it's biggest theater. I couldn;t believe it but the show I went to last night was sold out. LG films is making a nice chunk of change with it.

Looks like Kong will pass 200 million next weekend.

Maybe a little dissapointing per expectations, but definitely still a big money maker when you figure it will pretty much break even domestically, so all the international box office, merchandise and eventually DVDs will be pure profit.

Well, more like it'll break even theatrically with international included.

Still a solid run though, all things considered.

Most of the international Box Office will be profit. The cost was around $200 million, more for marketing etc. So it will come close to breaking even domestically, and most of the international will be profit.

All the international gross will be profit. It's taken in $272 million overseas for a grand total of $464 million. I'm happy with that. A few weeks ago, many projected the film wouldn't pass $150 million here.

Also a big :thumbsup: to Munich taking in $7.5 million. Finally saw this yesterday and loved it. Hopefully it will pick up some momentum as it's expanded. This deserves a Best Picture spot.

No, it'll lose money domestically. The rule of thumb is grossing 2 1/2 your budget to see profit. It's not a rule set in stone, but that's a pretty good guide to use.

All in, it will make money, but not with North American grosses.

So what percentage do the theatres get from the gross?

Yeah, exactly. Kong will probably be around or just shy of break even point with worldwide box office considered. 2 times, 2.5 times...it's somewhere around there for determining breakeven point.

But on the other hand, nobody greenlights budgets of 150 million plus with the idea that they'll make profits domestically.

yep, Kong needs to pull in around $400 million domestically to break even
Hell they're still buying television ads (never a good sign this far in a films theatrical run), so promotion alone must be around $100 million in cost

Studio's work out different deals with each film, but generally studio's make their money early in the run while the theaters get it late in the run on sliding scale, which is why theaters like films with legs

clearly Uni. thought they had a huge film on their hands or we wouldn't have been privey to all that"rival Titanic" talk before its release

That's not a bad sign. Just means the film is still playing and making money. Hell they were running HP4 ads just recently.

And that only came up late in the game when reviews were going through the roof, and they allowed a long length. And hell, I don't recall Universal actually saying that themselves.

Remember, Kong was greenlit at 150 million dollars with the idea it'd be a 2 hour or so film. Surely they expected big, but those numbers (even the 207 million) don't display any confidence that the film will surely make money like Titanic. If someone was so sure a movie would make money like Titanic, they'd be safe spending 400 million dollars on the budget if they wanted to.

Besides, they DO have a huge film on their hands just, relative to cost, not as big as one would hope. If expectations hadn't been through the roof and the budget gone so over, this would be a bigger success than the other 150 million dollar films this year.

Cause really, expectations arise over hype and buzz...but for most films barely exist when they are greenlit. Certainly this film had some from the beginning being from who it is from. But expectations mean only so much...Narnia is a film that cost relatively the same amount of money budget and P&A (budget was only 9 million less) and had far lower expectations. Now its performing better than Kong, and is considered a resounding success. But what if it made what Kong did? It'd still be considered a success, whereas Kong is a disapointment, even though relatively speaking they cost practically the same amounts. Those expectations don't always relate to actual bottom line amounts.

Now certainly those expectations color my definition, and I consider Kong's gross soft, but solid nonetheless.

I have a question. When Burger King and Kong partner up, who gets paid?

-JP

The only place I ever saw "Kong will rival Titanic" talk was on the 'Net.

To me the interesting Christmas box office story isn't Narnia and Kong--one's doing slightly better than expected, the other slightly worse, oh well--but rather the battle of the comedies. For the last few years comedies have cleaned up at Christmas: last year Meet the Fockers made $60m in its opening weekend. (The year before that it was Cheaper by the Dozen and Something's Gotta Give.)

All the studios wanted to get in on the action this year, but the result has been a bloodbath with no clear hits. Dick and Jane has earned $80m so far, but has to deal with the burden of Jim Carrey's salary--the budget was $100 m. Cheaper by the Dozen 2 is doing well below the original. Rumor Has It and Family Stone are languishing under $50m. Only Dick and Jane has a shot at the $125m-ish that the Something's Gotta Give, and the original Dozen hit. And none of them is going to get anywhere near Focker's $280m.

Kong.