STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

[The Transformed Man]

Monster's University opened huge with an estimated $79 million, and World War Z looks to take in $62 million. Man of Steel collapsed (as I expected) taking in an estimate $42 million in it's second weekend.

Still waiting on numbers for STID.


Yancy

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Damn Man Of Steel is making a ton of money. No wonder Warners is thrilled.

Let's hope the next Trek doesn't have to go up against it in 2016

 

[Lance]

Nothing to do with how it's tracking globally, but I thought I'd share this.

My local cinema screened it for barely three weeks and then moved onto other movies, dropping STID from the schedule.

I dunno. Maybe I'm old fashioned. But you know, back in the old days even the lowest grossing movies would usually be given at least a month, even if their screenings per day were pared right back to the bare minimum required.

I don't know if it's because the digital age means it's easier for small-town cinemas to just ditch movies that don't smash their own localized box office instantly, or whether it's just that my particular local cinema only has four screens and Star Trek didn't do enough locally to justify keeping other, more potentially profitable upcoming movies from taking it's spot. But to my mind, three weeks seems to be a stupidly short amount of time for any movie to be in a theater.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

- If a theater only seats 100, and shows sell out, that's good. Indications are that the movie showing there is popular, and very possibly more could have been seated. If a theater seats 1000 in a large market, but only 100 buy tickets, that's not as good. Both count the same number of tickets sold, but there's likely a different thing going on in terms of popular interest.

Yeah but nation- or worldwide would average that out.

That's conjecture. What does it even mean in this case, to "average out"?

Once you've answered that, apply it to a different era, when there were far fewer theaters, like, say, the silent era in 1915.

 

[Belz...]

That's conjecture. What does it even mean in this case, to "average out"?

Because I want to know how many people saw it total, so local theatres don't matter.

Once you've answered that, apply it to a different era, when there were far fewer theaters, like, say, the silent era in 1915.

I already admitted that it has its flaws. This is the third time that I say that there are no ways to reliably compare movies financially across different time periods.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Also, how are the "adjusted numbers" figured? Is it based on inflation or change in ticket prices? Because it seems to me that these calculations often fail to hold true to either.

 

[BillJ]

I already admitted that it has its flaws. This is the third time that I say that there are no ways to reliably compare movies financially across different time periods.

Conditions are just so radically different across the decades that there is simply no fair way to compare films from differing eras.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

That's conjecture. What does it even mean in this case, to "average out"?

Because I want to know how many people saw it total, so local theatres don't matter.

Well, if that's the data you're after, then fine. However, you don't even need to know anything about "averaging out" for that.

My point in raising the examples was that, without the consideration of additional data, that alone doesn't correspond to what one means by the term "popularity" (or, for that matter, even the term "interest").

Conditions are just so radically different across the decades that there is simply no fair way to compare films from differing eras.

Yep. It's an apples-to-oranges world.

 

[Opus]

How would number of tickets sold not be the best way to measure the popularity of movies during their theatrical runs?

1.) Value - Out of pocket hurt the wallet far less back in the day vs. today. The 'amount' for 2 people to go to a movie is far higher today.

2.) Options - Movies used to be the only game in town. If you don't see a film in the theater, you will most likely never see it. Now if you don't see it, wait a couple of months and it's out on BD, or Netflix, or OnDemand, or Premium Cable...

3.) Cost - It costs more for studios to make movies today. From explosive salaries because actors are no longer signed under contract by studios, to explosive SFX prices, films that draw audiences need to spend more. And the price reflects it.

 

[throwback]

And it's getting harder for the blockbuster films to recoup their costs. For "Man of Steel", a film with a budget of $225, to be successful, it will need at least $450 million in profits. Not improbable. However, the number of films that make over $500 million is small, and there has to be a ceiling there.

 

[Belz...]

Well, if that's the data you're after, then fine. However, you don't even need to know anything about "averaging out" for that.

What I meant was simply that taking into consideration all theatres eliminates the problem you mentioned.

 

[The Transformed Man]

$855,000 for Friday. So probably a $2.5 million weekend.

Yancy

 

[Belz...]

3.) Cost - It costs more for studios to make movies today. From explosive salaries because actors are no longer signed under contract by studios, to explosive SFX prices, films that draw audiences need to spend more. And the price reflects it.

We'd need cost AND gross in order to be able to at least get a grasp of how good a movie did. Unfortunately even BoxOfficeMojo doesn't have costs for the older movies, and as Buzzkill mentioned we're not exactly clear on how much these movies cost today.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Well, if that's the data you're after, then fine. However, you don't even need to know anything about "averaging out" for that.

What I meant was simply that taking into consideration all theatres eliminates the problem you mentioned.

No, it doesn't. If you're only counting tickets sold, you can't count seats that aren't there. Remember, the question, as phrased, was whether tickets sold is a good measure of popularity.

The fact that seats would be filled, if only they were available, has to determined by considering more information. Again, this may not be important for the measure you're considering, but it matters when gaging the interest level in a movie. Observing that you're selling a lot of tickets for the area you're in might help in deciding whether to expand the distribution of a film, or, when considering films in aggregate, it might help in deciding to build more theaters.

 

[Opus]

And it's getting harder for the blockbuster films to recoup their costs. For "Man of Steel", a film with a budget of $225, to be successful, it will need at least $450 million in profits.

This is a bogus fallacy that's been bandied about these boards for years. Untrue.

 

[Sindatur]

And it's getting harder for the blockbuster films to recoup their costs. For "Man of Steel", a film with a budget of $225, to be successful, it will need at least $450 million in profits.

This is a bogus fallacy that's been bandied about these boards for years. Untrue.

I don't think Throwback means what was posted. I believe what throwback meant was MoS needs to take in about $450M in order to show a profit. It would be insane to say it needs to have $450M in Profit to be successful, it would need to take in about a Billion to cover a $450M profit

Basic formula that's used around here, I believe is,
Budget + half of Budget for Marketing = Break Even/Profitable
Studio only gets about 1/3 of Foreign Box Office

STID:
$190M Budget + $95M = $285M
$214.5M Domestic + $67M (1/3 of $201.7 Foreign) = $281.5
This is with a current figure of $416M

So, The other 4 countries who are to still to release it, The DVD/BD, TV sales and Netflix is all gravy, because the box office has already covered the cost of making the film (The Studios don't want to consider After-theater in Profitability, they want that all to be gravy)

How much Man of Steel needs to bring in, depends upon what percent is Foreign vs Domestic

 

[Belz...]

No, it doesn't. If you're only counting tickets sold, you can't count seats that aren't there.

It doesn't matter, if we want to know how many times it was seen in theatres. You are creating a problem that doesn't exist.

The fact that seats would be filled, if only they were available, has to determined by considering more information.

That would certainly be a very interesting piece of information if it were available, but the factors getting those seats filled are impossible to determine anyway.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Oh, good grief. Moving on....

 

[Beyerstein]

How would number of tickets sold not be the best way to measure the popularity of movies during their theatrical runs?

1.) Value - Out of pocket hurt the wallet far less back in the day vs. today. The 'amount' for 2 people to go to a movie is far higher today.

2.) Options - Movies used to be the only game in town. If you don't see a film in the theater, you will most likely never see it. Now if you don't see it, wait a couple of months and it's out on BD, or Netflix, or OnDemand, or Premium Cable...

3.) Cost - It costs more for studios to make movies today. From explosive salaries because actors are no longer signed under contract by studios, to explosive SFX prices, films that draw audiences need to spend more. And the price reflects it.

That stuff is all irrelevant though. If you just wanna compare what kind of business two movies did you just wanna know how many people went and saw this movie and how many people went and saw that movie.

Like, Avatar is one of the highest grossing movies ever, but with the 3D surcharges it was also one of the most expensive movies to go see ever, so how is that meaningful data?

 

[Opus]

That stuff is all irrelevant though. If you just wanna compare what kind of business two movies did you just wanna know how many people went and saw this movie and how many people went and saw that movie.

Except people are motivated (or not motivated) to see movies in the theater in different generations (as my list attempted to explain). Thus comparing past movies to current movies by ticket sales (or any means for that matter) is like comparing apples to oranges. You simply cannot.