2009 at the Box Office - Page 47

Not in Michigan unless you're talking about some colleges.  The last day for school was Wednesday.

I believe THE HURT LOCKER played one major theatre here and then it was out after two weeks.  The others haven't come to any of the larger theatres here and it appears this is happening at a lot of places.  All the experts keep saying all these records are being broke but looking at boxofficemojo it seems only the top films are making the money while these smaller films are falling apart. 

In my neck of the woods, grade schools through high schools were done on 12/18/09, so they had all of last week off.

Anyhow, still a very impressive feat to gain from its opening Monday to its second Monday. 

They gave them two full weeks off?  Are you sure about that?  I wish I had that when I went to school back in prehistoric times.

Yes, but they also make them start school in mid-August (while school ends in early May), it's totally out of whack from my recollection of the school year too.  I remember Labor Day being the end of summer and when school would start up again.  Not anymore.

I can't say for the rest of the Great White North, but up here in BC the Winter break started on Dec 18 and finishes Jan 4. Some parts of Quebec, Ontario and Alberta also have the same break period. In your country, LA, Seattle and Houston all started on Dec 18. New York scrooged out by starting on Dec 24. This is according to some of the schedules I found online. Obviously I have too much time on my hands.

The kids have it easy today.  When I was in grade and high school, our first day of school was the day after Labor Day and out last day of school was around the 3rd or 4th week in June depending on how many snow days were called.  Also, we didn't have any spring break either.  We got a couple of days off for Easter and that was it.

Where do you get the 50% number?  I hear it on shows that talk about movie profits but here on HTF it is always being said that studios get 90-95% of the ticket admissions in the first few weeks when most of the ticket sales are made.  The best I understand is the 50% number is a typical average for the entire run after taking into account all other expenses like marketing, duplication, distribution, etc.  I know that Hollywood accounting puts Enron to shame but I am curious what are the real best estimates of studio takes.  50% doesn't seem correct in this context.

I believe you are incorrect in that assessment.  When I went to school back in the day, 170 to 175 school days a year were typical.  Now nearly all states are around 180 days.  While the start and stop times may have shifted to make it seem better, children probably go to school today 5 to 10 days more than you did.  Plus the hours per day may be longer to boot.

nope, that 90-95% and decreasing weekends hasn't been true since the mid-late nineties.

here's a decent article about how much studios expect to get back on this years slate:
http://www.mcnblogs.com/thehotblog/archives/2009/12/2009_the_major.html

TDK had some segments filmed in IMAX, but not the entire film.  Cameron knew from the start that his film would be in IMAX-3D, and he even compromised by releasing it on IMAX-3D  in an aspect ratio of 1.85:1 so it would play even bigger on a true IMAX film screen (not to be confused with the LieMax digital projection with the smaller screens), while also releasing the standard 2D and RealD (3D) in the wider 2.35:1 AR.

I think it's be interesting to see if Avatar can go the distance and at least pull ahead of TDK, which would give Cameron the top 2 all-time grossing films (in terms of gross domestic dollars not accounting for inflation and all that mess).

I think the reason why the film is getting solid word of mouth and applause at the end of the film is because Cameron has been able to craft solid cinematic entertainment with a film that moves with momentum and purpose, and just doesn't meander and overstay its welcome. Cameron knows how to not only how to pare down the "telling" of character motivations with dialogue, but he also uses the visual medium to show us subtle and consistent character motivations as well. But, you have to actually be alert and mindful of all the different ways he imbues such motivations, but it's tough to do on the first viewing because the film is a smorgasbord of an outstanding visual feast, and it seems like people simply get confused, or something just isn't getting through them, but for others, it's plain as day, and quite easy to piece together if you are paying attention. This film rewards mindful viewing.  I think we viewers are getting a little lazier in our movie-watching, relying on being spoonfed through dialogue/exposition instead of being challenged by a director who uses spoken dialogue, visuals and audio to provide enough queues without bogging down the story flow, and while the story feels simple, it's rather denser than it appears on the surface.

As someone who loves movies, numbers, and history, I'm eating up the data on Avatar eagerly.  I'd like nothing more than to see it make a run at Titanic.  Another thing I'm tracking is how many days in a row it can sell out the IMAX theater here in Grand Rapids.  It's already booked today and tomorrow.  I wonder when the next big IMAX film is scheduled to come out... if Avatar is still selling out four shows a day, will the movie theater stick with that instead of switching to the next movie?

Greg,

Alice in Wonderland is scheduled for March 5, but it'll be interesting should Avatar win a bunch of Oscars on March 7.

Okay but that article isn't the same thing as what I asked.  That article is about end of the day profits for the studio after all the players have been payed off and get their share of the profits but doesn't talk about how much of the ticket take comes back to the studio to then pay off all the players, which includes the studio itself.  In fact, the one number that is never taken away from gross ticket sales in the article is the actual movie theater portion of ticket sales.  An implication of the 50% rule is that the movie theater gets the other 50% of the ticket sales because they have to double the cost just to see any profit.  That clearly is not true.  Isn't that why on some big budget flicks theaters put the "No passes" rule in effect; because the studio expects nearly 100% of the ticket take to go back to it so the theater cannot afford to lose money on the passes?  The passes are sold at $8 an admission but the studio expects $10 an admission and the theater sells normal tickets at $10.50 an admission.

It seems to me that the 50% rule is more of a guideline that determines if it was worth the effort to make the movie for a reasonable RTOI (or basically defined as successful), not that it is the minimum to see any profit no matter how small.

I don't know anything about Cameron/Bigalow but I did learn from "Nine" that it's pretty difficult to be married to a director.  I wonder how maniacal someone like Cameron or Jackson is when they sit down with a big project.  I'm sure a couple years of 20 hour days are a given.  It'd be difficult for any kind of relationship, let alone marriage, to survive that.

Are you serious Terry? Or are you just talking about a nomination?

I can see a nomination but even that isn't a lock. People really enjoy the movie, but I haven't seen anyone not acknowledge the story was unremarkable. There's no way Avatar will be a Best Picture contender.

With 10 Best Picture nominees at this year's Oscars, I can't see why Avatar won't be included among them.

Yeah, I'm with you.  I remember how much screaming from the rafters there was last year when TDK wasn't in the top 5.  I guarentee you Avatar will be in the top 10... heck, you could almost argue that the backlash TDK's snub (a deserved snub, IMO) last year is the reason they moved to 10 nominees.

Cameron had a great article in EW about the best picture nominees and the increase to ten.  He said it would be nice to have a nomination, but admitted that Avatar as a picture is not changing cinema forever.  He talked about Star Wars being nominated for best picture back then and how that was huge, because nothing like that had ever been nominated.  Then they gave best picture to Annie Hall.  He commented that Star Wars changed cinema forever, was widely the most popular movie among fans, but lost.  And most people have no idea what Annie Hall is today.  So he ended it with saying that he agrees that if it's the fans favorite then it should should at least get nominated for a best picture, and 10 nominees will do that. 

Patrick:

Are you suggesting that if you didn't enjoy Avatar (or "get" the story), there is something wrong with you as the viewer?

That bit was actually about people not "getting" character motivations (I'm frankly amazed at how some wannabee screenwriters on other sites can go on and on about paper-thin characterizations within "Avatar" while missing how much is shown and not simply told through writing and directing choices because each frame of "Avatar" is a commitment to a singular vision of storytelling at a very high production cost). 

I'm sure everyone who didn't like "Avatar" gets the "simple" story, but you have to wonder why are people applauding at the end of the film (I've witnessed it twice at my viewings, and many others have reported the same reaction to the film at its conclusion).  I can only surmise that people not in "awe" of "Avatar" were really hoping for some other movie that would blow their minds and change the way they view movies (probably far too lofty expectations for any film, not just "Avatar"), while Cameron was more about creating a film in a setting that engaged the audience's sense of wonder, while providing enough dramatic conflict for viewers to engage themselves in the stakes of the conflict and the resolution.  Cameron has come up with a new way to capture actors performances within a highly intensive CGI backdrop that keeps viewers invested in these performances, while pushing the eye candy envelop at the same time, which becomes "gotta-see-it event" cinema at the box office. 

There's a special skill and vision in producing such films, and sure, he may have gotten lucky with "Titanic", but to do it again with "Avatar"?  It's not luck, it's choices made to create populist cinema for the 21st century audience in mind.  Cameron knows that if he sacrifices dramatic momentum for meandering existential examination of character motivations, he'll be boring the audience, and lose them for the final act.  So, he uses visual shortcuts and cues that allow the viewers to piece together enough character backstory or emotional state of mind throughout the film without losing momentum in storytelling of the larger plotline within the film.  That's not easily done if he has to worry about every single frame of film produced for this film. The script has to be locked down very tight to manage the costs.

That being said, people can dislike "Avatar" for a number of reasons, some I'd find childish or eye-rolling (if they are petty reasons), or some immediately have their defenses up when some hot-button scene plays out in the film (whatever anti-something sentiment they perceive is being mined on-screen), robbing them of being able to enjoy the rest of the film because they are fuming inside (the equivalent of the phonograph's needle screeching across the record when something has interrupted the party).  I've read such reactions to the film, and it sucks to be them.

There might be legitimate reasons to dislike it in terms of taste for this genre of film (if fantasy/sci-fi isn't your typical cup of tea, etc).  If you dislike it from being too derivative or lacking in colorful unforgettable characters, fine, then you dislike it.  While there's nothing "wrong" with that criticism if it's how you feel, but there was so much to like in the film as well, and if you are able to toss the baby out with the bathwater so casually, that's your prerogative and your loss.

What can't be denied is the tremendous amount of word of mouth for this film, regardless of the naysayers, they are simply far outnumbered by those who were entertained for 2.5 hours, and for many, they'd jump right back in line for a 2nd or 3rd go-round because Cameron took them to a place that was full of dangerous adventure, and made them see a film that made them feel like they were 8 years old again, when films still brought them a sense of magic, wonder and awe to feed for their imaginations and aspirations in spite of their soul-crushing adult reality (I kid about the soul-crushing, but you get the idea, I hope). 

I mean, how you explain repeat viewings from people who rarely see movies at the theater, or rarely see the same movie twice at all?  "Avatar" is a film that, if you let it, will wash over your senses and take you far from your everyday world, and tug at primal emotional heartstrings if you allow yourself to become invested in the plight of the Na'vi, and the courage and heroism on display by the characters.  And not only that, you have these people telling their friends to go see the film, and so on and so on, with unprecedented box office results (had to bring it back to the box office thread).  You can market a turd for only so long before the word gets out that it's not very watchable, and then the box office tanks within 7-10 days (as the box office take keeps getting halved or worse each weekend, per the usual pattern), but not so for Avatar (2 back-to-back $75+ million weekends in a row?  What?), though time will give us a more complete picture of how it will perform once the holidays are over as we ring in the new year, but it's now brought in over $250 million after only 12 days, and also cruising to $500 million (domestic).

Sure, box office performance is not always reflective of quality, and that goes both ways, but for a film that was swinging for the fences in terms of production value/budget (with some naysayers hoping it would bomb as well, since it was a risky proposition for a film without a built-in fanbase from a previous installment of an existing film franchise, and marketed mainly on mainly the reputation of James Cameron and visuals), it would appear that it has provided enough entertainment value for a large number of its audience to keep spreading good word of mouth, without even downplaying the high cost if they elect to attend the Imax-3D showing, or the RealD 3D showings, both of which have much higher ticket prices associated with them.  Then again, Transformers 2 made $400 million this summer, and that bombastic movie was excessive in all the wrong spots, and I can't seem to find anyone willing to say they saw TF2 more than once.  TF2 had a previous installment, and 20 years of fandom built into its demographic, too.  "Avatar" didn't have any of that going into this holiday season, but rolls along on the strength of the product in question, and many people are responding more favorably to it, than one would have any business expecting or guessing that to be the case.

So, if there anything wrong with a viewer who didn't enjoy "Avatar", not any more wrong than I, who doesn't really get the critical love for "Up in the Air", and film that I suspect will be mostly forgotten by next year because its subject matter is far too sobering and not something I'd voluntarily re-visit anytime soon.

This brings to mind the famous "Mom" retort: If all your friends jumped off a bridge, would you jump too?

I have no interest in this film, and it can make all the money in the world and I still will have no interest in the film.

That said, I am amazed at its popularity.  I didn't think there was a chance it would pull in a mass audience the way it has given the (IMO)  ridiculous trailers. Who knows...maybe the trailers were poorly done and are not reflective of the actual film.

But the big grosses still don't make me want to see it. Though it may be enough to get me to spend $1 at a Redbox six months from now.

...

If TITANIC gets accused of having teen girls making it a hit then people are going to attack AVATAR for drawing in fan boys who are watching the film over and over again. 

 

I plan on seeing the film once the demand dies down but I work in an office with a few hundred people and only know of two people actually seeing the film.  Of the 40+ people I'm in charge of, none have seen it and none plan on seeing it.  

I'm always curious in these large numbers if millions of people are actually seeing the film or if a large group of fans keep watching it over and over.  I know at another site there is a large thread with people racing to see who can watch it the most times before the end of the year and a few are over twenty showings.   

My interest in the film was prompted by the impressive visuals, which made it worth seeing at least once (I waited to see it this morning in a near-empty theater, rather than rush out with the "crowd" to see it).  Like many others, I found the story to be extremely derivative and full of stereotypes.  But it is a feast for the eyes.

Malcolm, why are you amazed?  You haven't seen it, so your data point is merely the ad campaign.  Which sucked.  Having seen it, I am not amazed at the reaction.  And a $1 Redbox won't make it obvious either.  That is a self-fulfilling prophecy is I ever read one.

Like Titanic, it's a massively polished and compelling populist entertainment.  And any argument based on "so and so" driving the grosses is absurd.  If teenage girls drove Titanic, then surely Twilight: New Moon should make nearly equivalent money (or a lot more, ticket prices have skyrocketed since 1997).  If it is fanboys, then surely it drove the Star Wars prequels and LOTR films (which it will clearly outgross) as well.  Many folks in my office are seeing it, or already have.  I was going to take my wife today to a baby IMAX screening.  All sold out today.  And most of tomorrow.  I found it at the "harder to get to" IMAX for the afternoon show.  Those Monday to Monday and Tuesday to Tuesday grosses are something the LOTR films didn't do, and those had fanboys AND fangirls.

So maybe, just maybe, it's actually the mainstream audience being interested.  Maybe the Cameron name carries some legitimate cachet.  

"It is hard to fill a cup that is already full..."