sabre

Has any movie released in 2006 cracked the 100 million barrier yet? Failure to launch 87mil, inside man 85, scary movie 4 79 mil, v for vendettal 70 mil, no movie even that close to 100 million. I can't remeber a year that by May a movie hasn't hit 100 million by now. Why? dvd, downloading, high price of movie theater tickets? i love the movies but the first movie i am seeing this year will be mi3, for me it is because of dvd, much better experience seeing movies at home without annoying people making noise and having to go out for their third bucket of popcorn. But i also plan to see this summer superman returns, x3, posiden, divinci code and maybe another one or two. so is it the quality or type of movies released. I probably go see only movies that benefit from the big screen. I also hit matinees which allow me to see more movies for the same total cost. $5 matinee at theater on the highway compared to 9 or 10 dollars at night or 7.50 matinee at a theater near me.
Should movie companies release movies on dvd at the same time as in theaters? I can't see that happening because of the lost revenue from movie theaters but I know personally I would perfer that in most cases except for the giant movies that benefit from the big screen. after all my tv is only 35 inches and size does matter, sometimes.

Dr. DVD

I think MI3 might be the first to gross $100 million. I actually interpreted your title as meaning movies that cost $100 million or more to make. If that was the case, my answer would be just about every major summer release is north of that area. I remember the days when a movie that cost $100 million was something special, now it's a weekly thing, go figure.

jigga6286

Ice Age: The Meltdown. 177 million

Matthew Chmiel

Despite not being huge hits, most of the horror films have it hit big so far in 2006.

Hostel had a budget of $5 million, grossed $48 million.
When a Stranger Calls had a budget of $15 million, grossed $48 million.
Final Destination 3 had a budget of $26 million, grossed $55 million.
The Hills Have Eyes had a budget of $15 million, grossed $42 million.

Not huge hits by any means, but it is shocking when four unconnected films all break even and make profit within a two-month period.

Tyler Perry's Madea's Family Reunion made a killing as well. It made $64 million on a $6 (!) million budget.

Despite being higher profile films, Scary Movie 4, Date Movie, and The Inside Man have all hit profit as well.

OldBoy

of course none of those are $100 million.

Matthew Chmiel

Hey, no shit sherlock? Way to go at pointing that out to me Captain Obvious, because I didn't realize the thread I was in. And nice way not to further the discussion with that one as well.

Who cares if they didn't break $100 million? At least they broke even, which is what Hollywood executives look for. They aren't concerned if a film hits $100 million, they wan't a film to break even and generate a profit for the film. The more it can generate a profit in theaters, the better for the studios.

A film like Failure To Launch might seem like a sleeper hit, but not to the studios. It cost almost $60 million to make (which boggles my mind) and add another $30 million due to marketing and distribution, and it still hasn't even broke even. Compare this to Hostel where it only cost $22 million total to produce, market, and distribute and it made more than twice that.

Just because a film crosses the $100 million barrier doesn't make it a hit. Troy anyone?

Peep

Well, that is the point of this topic.

There's plenty of other topics about smaller films with big profit margins. No sense hijacking this one.

DRG

Last year by this point three films had crossed the $100mil mark: Robots, Hitch, and The Pacifier. This year only Ice Age: The Meltdown has.

I think the problem was there really wasn't many *big* Jan-Apr releases. Failure to Launch was probably intended to be this year's equivalent to Hitch, and it still did okay, especially considering how poor the reviews were and the fact that neither McConaghey or Parker are as big of box office draws as Will Smith. And instead of family business being concentrated into one live action film like The Pacifier, it was spread to a bunch of medium sized hits like Pink Panther, Eight Below, and The Shaggy Dog.

Dr. DVD

Uh....according to boxofficemojo Troy made over $467 million worldwide. I would say that even with a $200 million budget that's a pretty good turn. Do some research before you make claims buddy boy.

OldBoy

my bad, i didn't realize you just clicked in this thread to make a random post, not reading the actual thread topic. sorry!

AnonomusBob15

well, this thread is actually designed for a one post answer. Ice Age. It could have ended at that and served its purpose. Why blame Matt for trying to continue an interesting topic?

BigDan

And despite that, total box office is apparently up about 5% over last year.

The Bus

Ice Age. Thread over.

The Cow

You didn't answer the "why?" question in the OP. Thread re-started.

whoopdido

Since when does anybody, including movie executives, simply strive to break even? People are in business to make as big of a profit as possible. King Kong made made roughly $550 million worldwide. It had a $200 million dollar production budget and God only knows what the marketing budget was, so it's safe to say that it only made a $250-300 million profit. That might not seem too bad, but I'll guarantee the studio expected a MUCH better return on investment and therefore was disappointed in the theatrical peformance of King Kong.

sauce07

I think King Kong had one of the biggest advertising campaigns ever. I guarentee if you count world wide it was at least $125 million, just for advertising.
If you disagree please let me know

NatrlBornThrllr

People need to lighten the fuck up.

sabre

Forgot about Ice Age 2 the meltdown, not my kind of movie but i will be buying it on dvd for the nieces and nephews. About movies breaking even, foreign revenue is huge itf the movie translates, most comedies like failure to launch don't traslate to other countries very well, but action does.

DVD- someone posted the amounts movies are making from dvd are huge. I saw an article in entertainment weekly about how stars are unnecessary and most of them can't open movies anymore. But stars sell dvds. movies like 16 blocks and firewall will sell a ton of dvds because they star bruce willis and harrision ford. Older audiences don't rush out to see every movie, by older i mean over 25 with a J O B, like younger audiences do with the latest horror movie. But they will pick up the movie at the local store or rent it from blockbuster or netflix. Example tears of the sun made 33 million us box office, on dvd it sold 36 million dollars worth of dvds. if studios can control costs they should make a ton of money. Should failure to launch starring mccauney and parker cost 50+ million to make no way. should superman returns, king kong cost near 200 no way. mi3 150 million, poisden 180+ million no way. JJ abrham can make great Alias episodes for a couple million bucks but makes mi3 for 150 million. and cruise didn't take an upfront salary. The cost are out of control, the funny thing it is not really star cost it is cgi cost. studios think it is a safer bet to make a couple of 100+, way plus, movies than to make 30 million dollar movies. bigger cost bigger marketing costs but bigger revenues all over, foreign, domestic and dvd. but when the films bomb it can sink the some executives career, if not s studio.

paradicelost

How did Hoodwinked do with its gross. I've read it cost around 15 million, and i've heard it did 3-4 times that in gross. I'm sure it didn't do 100mil, but it made a pretty good profit.

RichC2

Made about $51.3m in the US, $69m overall.

JimmySRU

I was out with a group of eight or nine friends this weekend all have families and children and the last movie they saw in the theater was My Big Fat Greek Wedding and they were all talking about going to see the Da Vinci Code and how they cant wait for it. I have a feeling this movie is going to make alot of money and gross over a hundred million.

clemente

You sure you want to go out on the limb.
While we're at it, I predict it will be cold in Chicago in winter.

Just messing with you

Dr. DVD

While I loved the movie, I think read somewhere that after all was paid, Kong might have only netted about $70 to $100 million of profit for the studio. Interesting how little profit comes from a movie that grossed over $550 million, but when you sink that much into it, I guess that's how it goes. I really don't understand how that movie only managed about $216 million in the U.S. after almost everyone gave it high marks and the marketing campaign. The only real gripe I heard about it was its length.

xage

As of this post, there were approximately 11 movies now that broke the $100 million boxoffice this year. A bright year for movie studios, compared last year were almost all movies did not gross that much.

majorjoe23

Almost all movies this year have not grossed that much, either. Only 11.

But I think I understand what you're saying.