2011 at the Box Office (1 Viewer)

[TravisR]

I believe that is incorrect math.  KFP2 only made 45% of its revenue in 3D with the $3-$4 surcharge, not a 45%/55% ticket sales split.. 

Even if my math is wrong, they still made an extra $3 or $4 more on every 3-D ticket sold. I don't particuarly care for 3-D and I certainly think that the 3-D fad is almost dead yet again (though I'm sure it'll be back around 2040 since it basically comes back every 30 years) but it's still an easy way to make some more money on a ticket so whether it's 45% of their revenue or 45% of the ticket sales, they made plenty of extra money so why would they stop now?

 

[Chuck Anstey]

Originally Posted by TravisR




I believe that is incorrect math. KFP2 only made 45% of its revenue in 3D with the $3-$4 surcharge, not a 45%/55% ticket sales split..

Even if my math is wrong, they still made an extra $3 or $4 more on every 3-D ticket sold. I don't particuarly care for 3-D and I certainly think that the 3-D fad is almost dead yet again (though I'm sure it'll be back around 2040 since it basically comes back every 30 years) but it's still an easy way to make some more money on a ticket so whether it's 45% of their revenue or 45% of the ticket sales, they made plenty of extra money so why would they stop now?[/QUOTE]
Because of simple math. If the trend to prefer 2D continues, studios and theaters risk turning people away from sold out 2D showings while the 3D showings are more than half empty. I am assuming there is an additional cost to make of a movie 3D so at some point the extra revenue per movie will not be there for many movies. It seems clear that most movie goers are only going to see maybe 20-40% of the movies they watch at the theater in 3D and the rest 2D, at least with the current surcharges. A new balance needs to be struck where only a few movies are in 3D and those are shown about 50/50 in 3D and 2D. 3D is not going to be the new norm in the theater at least for a while unlike sound, color, or digital projection and has to go back to something rare and special if studios want to keep charging extra for it.


I am curious if 3D at home might actually drive 3D at the theater in the future. If people watched most material at home in 3D then they would expect movies in the theater to be in 3D. This is predicated on people actually preferring 3D at home for all programming instead of watching normally in 2D even if everything is available in 3D. At home there is no surcharge for 3D viewing so what would people prefer if the cost of 2D and 3D were identical at the theater?

 

[TravisR]

Because of simple math.  If the trend to prefer 2D continues, studios and theaters risk turning people away from sold out 2D showings while the 3D showings are more than half empty.

Where are you getting the information that there are sold out 2-D shows and half full 3-D shows AND that there are people who want to see a 2-D show and refusing to see one of the half empty 3-D screenings? Let's say that's true, theater chains and studios will listen to the public and give them more 2-D screenings because they're only in it for the money. While they love 3-D because it's more money for them, they aren't going to bother when the public loses interest in 3-D again.

 

[Chuck Anstey]

Originally Posted by TravisR

Because of simple math. If the trend to prefer 2D continues, studios and theaters risk turning people away from sold out 2D showings while the 3D showings are more than half empty.

Where are you getting the information that there are sold out 2-D shows and half full 3-D shows AND that there are people who want to see a 2-D show and refusing to see one of the half empty 3-D screenings? Let's say that's true, theater chains and studios will listen to the public and give them more 2-D screenings because they're only in it for the money. While they love 3-D because it's more money for them, they aren't going to bother when the public loses interest in 3-D again.[/QUOTE]

I am stating that if the trend to prefer 2D over 3D continues the current increasing trend, that is where it will wind up. Initially 3D was more popular than 2D in ticket sales. Now that is clearly not the case for many movies and 3D is becoming less popular (i.e. accounting for less and less revenue) so the above scenario is quite possible in the near future. I don't know about your area but 3D showings always outnumber 2D showings assuming 2D is even an option. If more tickets are sold to 2D showings and there are fewer of them compared to 3D showings, by simple math the 2D showings must have fewer available seats and the 3D showings more available seats.


I think the studios are going to respond quite slowly because of all the 3D movies already green lit that will consume the 3D screen and they won't want to also consume another 2 screens with the 2D version even when people prefer 2D 2:1 and theater revenue may take a hit over the next year because of it. I don't expect it to be a large hit, maybe 5-10% but enough to notice. Of course they may blame the revenue reduction on other things and cling to 3D being the new norm.

 

[Zack Gibbs]

Cartoons can easily and effectively be made in 3D with little additional cost, so they're likely going to continue with 3D indefinitely. The infrastructure is already in place so there's simply no reason not to.


Live action material of the 'blockbuster' variety is still exorbitantly expensive to produce in 3D, and the declining 3D attendance numbers are going to bring the rash of 3D productions to a halt as the profit disappears.


This will either result in a box-office paradox that destroys Hollywood, or they'll realize that the appetite for 3D material is still limited to the niche market that it has always had and they can cater to it in limited form.


I'm not sure which is more likely.

 

[Don Solosan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TravisR

but it's still an easy way to make some more money on a ticket

Is this true? Hollywood either has to shoot the film in 3D or pay for a conversion. The theaters have to spring for new equipment and screens, and someone has to clean all those darn glasses... it's not like turning on a spigot and collecting free money. There has to be a break-even point, where the percentage of revenue from 3D equals the cost of making the film available in 3D. And some time before they hit that point, execs will start selecting which films to release in 3D with a lot more care. After that point, it may only be specialty films (like Zack mentioned, animated films) that get the treatment.

 

[TerryRL]

Coming off the biggest Memorial Day Weekend frame in history, Hollywood got more good news as May 2011 earned a staggering $1.037 billion ($132 million stronger than last year), marking the biggest May haul in history, as well as only the second time in history May's total box office has tallied more than $1 billion (joining 2009). About 130 million theater admissions were sold during the May frame, which ranks as the seventh best ever for the month, on top of selling 15 million more tickets than last year. The last two months have earned the industry the biggest numbers ever for their respective time period, effectively bring the long box office drought to a screeching halt.


Still, overall year-to-date business is down 9% compared to last year, as well as being off by 5% compared to 2009. Industry experts are expecting to pick up the slack during the remainder of the summer, especially with films like "Super 8", "Green Lantern", "Cars 2", Transformers 3, the final Harry Potter, and 'Captain America' still on the horizon.

 

[TerryRL]

http://www.deadline.com/2011/06/first-box-office-x-men-first-class-looking-like-23m-friday-including-3-3m-midnights-for-estimated-58m-weekend/


So now the 2011 Summer Movie Season enters June after a big month of May. And this week looks like another up week as total movies are looking at a $150+M weekend which is more than +20% from last year. The action continues with Marvel/Fox's X-Men: First Class, a risky reboot directed by Matthew Vaughn (Kick-Ass) with a 1960s vibe and a release date all to itself in 3,641 theaters. It received a "B+" CinemaScore and very positive reviews (92 on Rotten Tomators) and started off by opening with a midnight gross of $3.3M from 1,783 locations. That edged out Marvel title Thor's $3.25 million midnight openings in 1,800 locations, but trailed X-Men Origins: Wolverine's $5 million midnight start at 2,000 locations. Wolverine's $85M opening weekend (from 4,099 locations) also swamped X-Men: First Class' debut -- Friday's total North American gross was $21 million for Friday and is looking like $53 million for the weekend. This will be the lowest opening of a Marvel-branded movie in a long time -- not to mention less than the $60M opening which Hollywood expected. Internationally, X-Men: First Class has already opened in France and Australia but broke no records and will roll out in 75 international territories on over 8,000 screens.


"Given that we are reinventing the X-Men franchise with a critically acclaimed director and top actors who are not really widely known to audiences, we're hoping to be somewhere around Batman Begins ($48.7M) and X-Men ($54.4M). That seems to be a good target area for us," said a Fox exec who was right on the money. The studio is hoping this prequel sticks around as moviegoers discover it. With a fresh cast including James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence, and Rose Byrne but no big stars like Hugh Jackman in a signature role like Wolverine, tracking had been slow to build, especially considering how massive The Hangover Part 2 was impacting other movies in the marketplace. But Fox saw steady growth in the core audience, and then growth with females which was surprising because X-Men movies are more typically male. Meanwhile, a word to the wise to the arrogant Vaughn: stop bad-mouthing other directors publicly. Sure, it's fun to bitchslap Brett Ratner and boast you could have outgrossed his X-Men 3 if only you'd been helming it -- but not when your Kick-Ass didn't do squat its opening weekend.


Here are the Top 10:

1. X Men: First Class (Marvel/Fox) NEW [3,641 Theaters]
Friday $23M, Estimated Weekend $53M

(Terry RL Note: As stated in the above report, the studio were expecting numbers in the neighborhood of "Batman Begins" and the first 'X-Men' flick. Mission accomplished. With a solid CinemaScore grade, the studio is expecting this one to have a leggy run in theaters. If everything works out as hoped, look for a 'First Class' sequel to hit theaters in 2013 or 2014.)


2. The Hangover Part 2 (Warner Bros) Week 2 [3,615 Theaters]
Friday $11M (-65%), Estimated Weekend $35M, Estimated Cume $189.4M


3. Kung Fu Panda 2 3D (DreamWorks Animation/Paramount) Week 2 [3,952 Theaters]
Friday $6.2M (-52%), Estimated Saturday $22M, Estimated Cume $98M


4. Pirates Of The Caribbean 4 3D (Disney) Week 3 [3,966 Theaters]
Friday $4.9M, Estimated Weekend $16.5M, Estimated Cume $188.7M

(TerryRL note: With more than $700 million earned worldwide thus far, the fourth flick of the Pirates franchise looks headed for a final haul in the $900-$1 billion area largely based on the film's absolutely stellar overseas run. Disney is now actively looking for a director for Pirates 5.)


5. Bridesmaids (Universal) Week 4 [2,919 Theaters]
Friday $3.5M, Estimated Weekend $12M, Estimated Cume $107M


6. Thor (Marvel/Paramount) Week 5 [2,780 Theaters]
Friday $1.3M, Estimated Weekend $4.5M, Estimated Cume $169.3M


7. Fast Five (Universal) Week 6 [2,237 Theaters]
Friday $975K, Estimated Weekend $3.4M, Estimated Cume $202M

(Terry RL note: "Fast Five" becomes the first 2011 release to cross the double-century mark. With a worldwide haul north of the $550 million mark, Universal is already putting together a sixth movie in what has turned into one of Hollywood's most lucrative franchises.)


8. Midnight In Paris (Sony Classics) Week 3 [147 Theaters] Friday $700K, Estimated Weekend $2.4M, Estimated Cume $6.4M


9. Something Borrowed (Warner Bros) Week 5 [688 Theaters]
Friday $250K, Estimated Weekend $750K, Estimated Cume $36.6M


10. Jumping The Broom (TriStar/Sony) Week 5 [589 Theaters]
Friday $200K, Estimated Weekend $700K, Estimated Cume $35.8M

---Nikki Finke

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Judging by the audience at my showing last night, I could see X-Men: First Class opening on the lower side of expectations on its way to a leggy run. The theater wasn't packed, but the audience loved it.

 

[TerryRL]

That was pretty much my experience when I saw it as well. Not a packed theater, but a very satisfied one when the movie was over.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Yeah, it looks like the numbers are going to fall short of 60M for X Men First Class.








Crawdaddy

 

[mattCR]

X-Men First Class was far better then I expected. FAR better.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Originally Posted by mattCR

X-Men First Class was far better then I expected. FAR better.

Hopefully, word of mouth will help it in regard to box office.

 

[Malcolm R]

I think it did pretty well considering the bad taste left by X3 and the pretty much no-name cast. It should have decent legs. I really had no interest in the film until I started hearing reviews and opinions from those that had seen it. My audience also seemed to love it.

 

[TerryRL]

I remember how disappointing the opening for "Batman Begins" was back in '05, but ending up legging it's way to a stellar run, as well as being one of WB's best selling DVDs at the time.


I think 'First Class' has a great opportunity to have a solid run in theaters during the remainder of the summer. The exit polling was extremely strong and the fact that the movie was off by only 5% in it's Friday-to-Saturday numbers (the Saturday number was actually bigger minus the $3.3 million in midnight screenings) are very encouraging.

Yes, historically the X-Men movies are front-loaded and suffer steep percentage declines after their initial releases, but I think that 'First Class' could buck the trend and have decent staying power during the next few weeks. Next weekend will be very telling. "Super 8" will likely take the top spot, but if 'First Class' can avoid having a 52%-plus dip, it'll be in good shape. We'll see what happens.


SECOND WEEKEND DECLINES FOR THE PREVIOUS FOUR 'X-MEN' FEATURES...

2000 "X-Men" -57%

2003 "X2: X-Men United" -53%

2006 "X-Men: The Last Stand" -67%

2009 "X-Men Origins: Wolverine" -69%

 

[Malcolm R]

Does anyone else think that "Green Lantern" could be this summer's big budget bomb? I've seen numerous trailers and while I usually enjoy most comic-based films, this just looks like a huge, weird mess. I have a feeling that this might not gain a mass audience beyond the hard-core comics fans.

 

[TravisR]

Does anyone else think that "Green Lantern" could be this summer's big budget bomb?

Yes. Even if it's the best movie ever made, I think it's going to be a tough sell to a mainstream audience. It's another character that few people outside of a comic book store have heard of, all the alien Lanterns and mountains of CG make it look weird and it'll be the third comic book movie in under two months. The overload of comic book movies over the last few years seems to have dinged the new X-Men movie's box office haul and I imagine that it's going to hit the Green Lantern even harder.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Green Lantern is the movie that has seemingly been hated before it even went before the camera. I don't understand it one bit, as the comic has been around for 70 years. But everyone except me thinks it looks like crap, even though it looks EXACTLY like what a Green Lantern film should.


I also cannot understand why Warner Bros refuses to use the moniker "From the director of Casino Royale". Pay the money to the Bond people to say that in the ads and you get another $10 million first weekend, easy, IMO.


But, yeah, I'm hoping it'll do at least as well as X-Men has at this point. If GL fails at the box office you can say goodbye to ever seeing any other DC comic character on the big screen outside of Batman and Superman. No Flash, Green Arrow, Hawkman or anything. Over, done, kaput.


And the current 3D backlash isn't gonna help it, either.

 

[Malcolm R]

Originally Posted by Brandon Conway


I also cannot understand why Warner Bros refuses to use the moniker "From the director of Casino Royale". Pay the money to the Bond people to say that in the ads and you get another $10 million first weekend, easy, IMO.


.

That reminds me of another oddity I saw this weekend. Before X-Men there was a trailer for Rise of the Planet of the Apes that started out with words something like "From WETA Digital, the company behind the special effects for AVATAR...." I think that's the first time I've ever seen the digital FX company given such priority in the marketing of a film. I don't even recall ILM ever being used like that. It just seemed weird as usually they're selling the director, writer or actors, not the FX company.

 

[TravisR]

 

That reminds me of another oddity I saw this weekend. Before X-Men there was a trailer for Rise of the Planet of the Apes that started out with words something like "From WETA Digital, the company behind the special effects for AVATAR...." I think that's the first time I've ever seen the digital FX company given such priority in the marketing of a film. I don't even recall ILM ever being used like that. It just seemed weird as usually they're selling the director, writer or actors, not the FX company.
 

 

I saw that trailer a month or so back and laughed outloud in the theater when I saw that line. I'm sure I said it in another thread but I can't imagine that anyone saw that and said "Weta?! Oh man, I gotta see that movie now!"