(Untitled)
I'd like to share some numbers, as provided by Box Office Mojo.
First, this was the state of TLA about two weeks ago:
Domestic gross: $123,264,000
Foreign gross: $27,300,000
Total gross: $150,564,000
Production cost: $150,000,000
Total cost: $280,000,000 (plus a possible $10-15,000,000 if the cost of the last minute 3D isn't taken into account ( Read more... )
First, this was the state of TLA about two weeks ago:
Domestic gross: $123,264,000
Foreign gross: $27,300,000
Total gross: $150,564,000
Production cost: $150,000,000
Total cost: $280,000,000 (plus a possible $10-15,000,000 if the cost of the last minute 3D isn't taken into account ( Read more... )
First, these reported " box office grosses" are not actually what the studios take in from their movies. They are the ticket sales which go to the movie houses. The movie houses usually keep about half for themselves and remit the balance to distributors (which may or may not be an arm of the studio). The distributor then deducts from the its out-of pocket cash expenses, including prints and advertising (called “P&A,”). These deductions often wipe out most, if not all, of what remains. Studios spent on average $35.9 million just for P &A on each of their titles in 2007. (Even their so-called “indie” divisions, such as Miramax, Sony Classics, and Fox Searchlight, spent an average of $25.7 million on P & A.) As a result, the studios spent more on P&A to lure in an audience into American theaters for an average film then they got back from their share of the box-office. And that does not take into account the cost of making a movie, which for a studio averaged $70.8 million in 2007 (Their Indie divisions spent only $49.5 per film). So while a "boffo" box-office gross might look good in a Variety headline, it might also signify a boffo loss.
Second, and far most important, it diverts from the reality that the domestic box-office provides only a minute part of the studios’ revenues/ (See Table 1). In 2007, according to the secret MPAA studio numbers, only about 20 percent of the the studios' revenue came from movie theaters, and over half of that came from foreign theaters. In 2007, worldwide TV, Pay TV, DVDs, and other licensing provided 80% of these revenues.
Movies now serve as launching platforms for creating properties that make their real profit in the so-called “back end” , much like the runways at haute couture fashion shows. Because of the crucial importance of these post-theatrical rights, Hollywood's profit margins depend upon optimally leveraging these properties across all the platforms they can find, such as Pay Per View, DVDs, Video-On-Demand, and TV movies. There is (no longer) a movie industry, there is an entertainment industry.
(emphasis mine)
Reply
We're mostly concerned with a sequel being greenlit; my personal opinion is that may or may not happen, but even if it does, it'll get stuck in production hell and nothing will come of it. Too much negative press has happened and it's just not killing at the domestic box office like Shyamalan and Paramount meant it to, and I know some people on racebending and wtf_tla have been saying that's what most studios look at in terms of calling a movie a success.
I'd admit right now, though, that my personal knowledge and experience with the movie/entertainment industry is pretty much nil; this is just the stuff I've noticed and heard.
Reply
I honestly agree that it's unlikely to be greenlit for a sequel, since other similar attempts to adapt popular young adult fantasy haven't taken off, either (The Golden Compass, The Dark is Rising, and Percy Jackson). But for a movie to well and truly fail, it has to fail at home, not in the theater.
Reply
Leave a comment