2004 Box Office Predictions And Discussions (1 Viewer)

[TerryRL]

So far, 22 releases from 2004 cracked the $100 million mark. The record for a single year belongs to 2003 which had a whopping 29 titles pass the century mark. 2004 did become the first year to produce more than one film breaking the $350 million plateau. A record-breaking three releases did it in 2004.

In terms of total $100 million-plus earners, 2004 is tied for third overall.

#1 2003 (29) #1 film- "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" $377.0 million ($1.1 billion worldwide)

#2 2002 (24) #1 film- "Spider-Man" $403.7 million ($821.7 million worldwide)

#3 2000 (22) #1 film- "Dr. Seuss' How the Grinch Stole Christmas" $260.0 million ($345.1 million worldwide)

#3 2004 (22) #1 film- "Shrek 2" $441.2 million ($916.0 million worldwide)

#5 1999 (21) #1 film- "Star Wars: Episode I- The Phantom Menace" $431.0 million ($924.5 million worldwide)

#6 2001 (20) #1 film- "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" $317.5 million ($976.5 million worldwide)

#7 1998 (18) #1 film- "Saving Private Ryan" $216.5 million ($481.8 million worldwide)

#8 1997 (16) #1 film- "Titanic" $600.7 million ($1.8 billion worldwide)

#9 1996 (15) #1 film- "Independence Day" $306.1 million ($817.0 million worldwide)

#10 1994 (12) #1 film- "Forrest Gump" $329.6 million ($677.4 million worldwide)

Judging by 2005's record start thus far, many are now speculating that this year could produce more $100 million earners than any year in history. 2005 has a good shot at becoming the first year ever to produce more than 30 releases to pass the century mark. The studios may be a bit too optimistic, but we'll see what happens.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Which is another reason why the "$100 million = big hit" concept should have been put out to pasture more than a decade ago. I think $200m+ = big hit, and not a penny below that.

Of course, the final list for what 2004 movies make won't be the same as what those releases had made through the end of the year. Fockers should end up in the #4 slot. (Shudder...) Didn't realize Polar Express had gotten as high as it did - I thought it was mired below $100m...

 

[TerryRL]

I agree, while $100 million does constitute a big hit, I think the term "blockbuster" should be reserved for those films that top the double-century mark (or $175 million at the very least).

"Meet the Fockers" is on its way to a domestic haul in the neighborhood of $275-$285 million. I figured the movie would be big, but by no means did I think it would out-pace the original film by more than $100 million.

"The Polar Express" should end its run with about $165 million. Expect it to put up huge numbers once it reaches home video.

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

Of course, the difference here is how one source accounts for its yearly box office gross and the actual days involved. It would be nice to know where Terry got his information just out of curiosity. But Variety's very specific and does not include grosses outside of the previously mentioned box office period.

~Edwin

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I'm sticking with a minimum of $200m. Honestly, I don't think $100m even represents a "big hit". Daredevil made $100m - it was NOT a big hit. Look at recent flicks that just nudged past $100m and you'll find many, many disappointments and films that were essentially bombs - for something like Cat in the Hat to barely get past $100m meant it was a flop. Heck, Godzilla's $139m was essentially a failure as well.

Even if we look at movies that made it past $175m, how many of them can we call "big hits"? Planet of the Apes (2001)? Jurassic Park 3? Men in Black II? These performed okay, but coasted to their grosses - I'd challenge the concept of them as real successes...

 

[Ernest Rister]

I only use two criteria when considering if a movie is a "real success". The 1st is total net film receipts from all over the world minus total cost of production, prints, and advertising. Just using an arbitrary number like $100 million or $200 million is meanigless. I would call Fahrenheit 911 a "real success" even though it grossed "only" $135 million or so domestic. the thing only cost $7 million to make before prints and advertising.

The second criteria is comparing one film to other films similar to it. Not every movie is going to play to the same demographics. It's not fair to compare American Beauty to Shrek 2, or Dawn of the Dead to Star Wars: Episode 1. Films should be measured against other similar titles in their own genre.

Passion of the Christ is a good example of that. Prior to release, if you had told someone that it was going to be the 3rd highest grossing film of the year and have domestic gross receipts topping those of The Two Towers and Fellowship of the Ring, nobody would have believed you. Why? Religious-themed movies don't play very well at the box office in the modern era. Compared to titles in in its own genre, Passion of the Christ is a monster hit. Same thing with Fahrenheit 911. Compared to other documentaries, it is a monster hit.

Same thing with slasher movies. Zombie movies. Westerns. And on and on it goes.

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

Believe me, any bad film like Daredevil that makes over $100M IS a big hit.

~Edwin

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I disagree that milestone numbers are "meaningless". $200m is a good benchmark for a movie that's successful compared to most standards. $300m is always terrific unless your film has Star Wars in the title - then you can make $300m and be considered a disappointment. $400m is the stratosphere.

But I DO agree that box office numbers are often relative. Napoleon Dynamite made something like $45m, I think, and I consider it to be a hit. It's all about expectations. Indeed, Fahrenheit was an enormous success because it did outpace its genre peers by such a tremendous degree.

Some numbers can be viewed objectively, but you definitely have to see many/most with a subjective eye...

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

Considering the benchmark for worldwide DVD, TV and cable revenues is generally twice a film's worldwide box office gross, a $100M North American gross is certainly not "meaningless".

From a business standpoint, one can make a good case that a film making more than $100M in the U.S., would in the end, after all the ancillary revenues are accounted for, stands to make a good profit except of course if its production and distribution costs are just way too exorbitant. Luckily, there has only been very few of those.

~Edwin

 

[TerryRL]

Edwin, I get most of my box office info from the Box Office Mojo, Box Office Guru, The Hollywood Reporter and Daily Variety.

I know that the trades often count $100 million performers strictly by calender year (i.e. a film like 'Lemony Snickets' being released in December and passing the century mark in early January won't be counted among the year's overall $100 million earners), but the studios count the overall number of releases a year will yield that many hits no matter the release date. Like "Black Hawk Down" being counted among the 2001 $100 million hits, despite doing most of its damage after its January 2002 release.

Its a cheat, but that's how they often do things. Much like how grosses from year-before holdovers (November and December releases) count toward the total box office of a given year. All but $132 million of the domestic haul of "Meet the Fockers" will be added with the total haul of 2005 for example ('Fockers' had earned $132.8 million as of December 31st), much like $129.5 million of the $377.0 million domestic tally of 'The Return of the King' counted toward the 2004 total despite its December 2003 release.

Most cats who keep up with the numbers just simply find it easier to count 2002 grosses with 2002 releases.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I didn't discuss the idea of a $100m gross as "meaningless" in regard to profitability. I regard it as useless as far as considering it a benchmark to establish if a movie's a big hit. And it is - $100m now means nothing as a way to gauge if a movie was a "hit", whatever that means.