The Box Office Thread

[_MJ_]

My favorite articles are coming out.  The "why did these movies bombed" articles.  Here is a NYTimes one that mention some people now are more excited about the event experience of a big movie than the movie, itself:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/business/media/hollywoods-summer-of-extremes-megahits-superflops-and-little-else.html by Brooks Barnes

If the just-show-up crowd is dwindling, the reasons include the comparative ease of other forms of entertainment (HBO Go, Netflix); the increasing cost of moviegoing (

now $17.25 per adult at the ArcLight chain’s Hollywood location, before 3-D upcharges); and the movie business itself, which has aggressively pushed one kind of event movie (lumbering, visual-effects-driven sequels) at the expense of variety.

The increasing popularity of online ticketing and reserved seating may also be playing a role. At Fandango, “there has been a shift from day-of purchase to advanced purchase,” according to Harry Medved, a company spokesman. Last week, AMC Entertainment, the No. 1 theater chain in North America, said that all nine of its locations in New York City would soon offer reserved seating.

“In the olden, olden days, people went to see whatever was playing, but people today, flooded with niche entertainment programming, don’t want to spend money on a movie they are only half-interested in seeing,” said the film historian Jeanine Basinger, whose books include “The Star Machine.”

When hauling the family to the theater seems worth it, the upside can still be enormous, Ms. Basinger noted. “Finding Dory” and “Captain America: Civil War,” both from Disney, were the top draws of the summer, collecting a combined $891 million at North American theaters, according to comScore. Third place went to Universal’s “Secret Life of Pets,” which took in $360 million; a sequel is already in the works.

On a smaller scale, STX Entertainment hit the jackpot with its modestly budgeted “Bad Moms,” which passed $100 million over the weekend, and Sony similarly succeeded with “Sausage Party,” which has taken in about $90 million. Warner Bros. powered “Lights Out,” a horror movie made for $5 million, to $66 million in ticket sales.

Over all, the handful of blockbuster hits made up for the misses — at least for theater owners, who will collect roughly $4.49 billion at the summer box office, on par with 2015, according to comScore. (Last summer was one week longer.) Attendance is expected to total 513 million, a 3.5 percent decline. For the year, theaters have generated about $8.11 billion in ticket revenue, a 5 percent increase; attendance is up about 1.2 percent.

But the misfires have added up for studios, most of which have been spending more on individual films as they search for global hits. Warner Bros., Sony, Universal, 20th Century Fox and Paramount all had diminished or nonexistent profits in the most recent quarter.

Disney was the exception, with a huge $766 million in profit, a 62 percent increase from the same quarter a year earlier. But even Disney has struggled recently. Its last three live-action releases have been duds: “Alice Through the Looking Glass,” “The BFG” and “Pete’s Dragon.” And, over the Labor Day weekend, a fourth, “The Light Between Oceans” is expected to sell a disappointing $6.3 million.

“We didn’t see a lot of middle ground this season,” Dave Hollis, Disney’s executive vice president for theatrical distribution, said on Sunday. “There are probably multiple reasons why, starting with the fact that people are making their selections much more carefully.”

[Reed]

Hollywood finances are out of control. 

Not even kidding, if I'm one of these studio accounting people I'm wondering just where all this money is going.  They ain't doing their job. 

A movie about some people hunting down ghosts should not cost $200 million. I'm sorry. It just shouldn't. 

Melissa McCarthy's paycheck and decent CGI shouldn't take up that much, you know?

They could have pulled off that film for $50 million and, even factoring in advertising costs, it would still have been a solid hit. 

 

[_MJ_]

I'm surprise the current film market is not over-saturated with low-to-moderate budgeted horror films and "Don't Breathe" type of marketing.  It's not my favorite movie genre so maybe there are more of them than I know.  It seems getting unknown actors and/or less expensive known actors and investing more into smart marketing is a decent formula.

[Death From Above]

Horror is literally the only field that actually tries to make any money without spending shit tons of money anymore. So I pretty much agree with that even though the genre bores the shit out of me 99% of the time.

 

That CGI (pretty clearly) costs more than physical effects and seems to have about a 50/50 shot of looking substantially worse really makes you wonder where the industry is going.

[Niners Fan in CT]

Horror had a huge summer.  Purge: Election Years,  Lights Out, Don't Breathe, The Conjuring 2 and a couple others made millions in profit. Still have the Blair Witch remake coming also.

[Reed]

9 hours ago, Death From Above said:

Horror is literally the only field that actually tries to make any money without spending shit tons of money anymore. So I pretty much agree with that even though the genre bores the shit out of me 99% of the time.

The horror genre has always been about psychology and fear. Most movie genres aren't.

Psychology and fear, however, never cost that much money.  Oh, explosions do. Superheroes do. Big name actors do. Expensive CGI does. Psychology and fear, however, doesn't. 

That's why most horror films don't need particularly big budgets, imo. You either scare someone or you don't. Budget is nothing. 

[RIPPA]

We talked about this in the Horror thread but horror also seems to be the only genre that has folks who will go see EVERYTHING

[Reed]

12 minutes ago, RIPPA said:

We talked about this in the Horror thread but horror also seems to be the only genre that has folks who will go see EVERYTHING

A theory I have always had:

*A guy and a girl on a date, deciding what to go see at the movies *

*the girl ain't keen on a dumbass action movie*

*the guy ain't keen on some romantic comedy* 

*they compromise on horror*

[J.T.]

15 hours ago, _MJ_ said:

I'm surprise the current film market is not over-saturated with low-to-moderate budgeted horror films and "Don't Breathe" type of marketing.  It's not my favorite movie genre so maybe there are more of them than I know.  It seems getting unknown actors and/or less expensive known actors and investing more into smart marketing is a decent formula.

When it comes to horror, there is no such thing as oversaturation.  You can flood a particular genre like say, the deluge of "torture porn" movies that followed Saw and Hostel or the "Let's Make An American Version Of A Japanese Onryo Movie!" period that Hollywood went through after Ring and Ju-On blew the fuck up in Japan or how every successive Paranormal Activity sequel invites a succession of Found Footage horror films, but there will always be a market for fright films.  

Thanks to the Halloween holiday, it is almost expected that there should be some sort of rush of horror movies that come out in the fall.

[Kevin Wilson]

Mel Gibson recently gave a long interview, and I don't have the link at the moment, where he said he didn't understand how movies were so expensive. But he doesn't typically use green screens, so he admitted that using them and adding stuff later may cost more than he realizes. I get the appeal of the green screen as it allows them to add whatever they want and change it later if they want, but it seems to really jack up the cost.

[_MJ_]

For experimental reasons and my own curiosity, I want to see a big studio produce a high budget horror flick to see how it would be receive in this era; financially and critically.

Edited September 9, 2016 by _MJ_

[EVA]

3 hours ago, _MJ_ said:

For experimental reasons and my own curiosity, I want to see a big studio produce a high budget horror flick to see how it would be recieved in this era; financially and critically.

The Benicio Del Toro Wolfman movie that came out 5 years or so ago was absurdly expensive.  Well north of $100 million.

The turn of the century was something a heyday for big-budget horror as you had the Liam Niesson remake of THE HAUNTING, Robert Zemeckis's WHAT LIES BENEATH, and HOLLOW MAN around that time.

I think Guillermo Del Toro's CRIMSON PEAK is the biggest most recent horror film with a big budget.

None of these films were hits, so that's probably why you don't see more of them.  I still wish we'd seen Del Toro's big budget IN THE MOUNTAINS OF MADNESS with Tom Cruise, even though I've soured on GDT in recent years.

[(BP)]

Universal is trying to set up their monster expanded universe right now. That'll set em' back a couple bucks. 

[odessasteps]

2 hours ago, (BP) said:

Universal is trying to set up their monster expanded universe right now. That'll set em' back a couple bucks. 

 

[Niners Fan in CT]

Shutter Island had a production budget of $80M and then whatever else for advertising but it made close to $300M worldwide in it's box office run and then probably tacked on more in profits for DVD/BR sales and television rights so that's one success of a bigger budget horror flick although I'm not sure I agree with it being classified as horror? 

The new 'Rings' movie looks like it cost more than it should.  I wonder what the budgets on the Final Destinations were. Obviously those were hits too.

[Death From Above]

In a sense I actually think big budget horror goes against the grain of what a lot of the core audience likes about the genre? With only rare exceptions.

 

That's honestly just a guess though.

[evilwaldo]

47 minutes ago, Death From Above said:

In a sense I actually think big budget horror goes against the grain of what a lot of the core audience likes about the genre? With only rare exceptions.

 

That's honestly just a guess though.

This x100.  The horror moviegoer likes the grittyness of a set inside of a house or on location in the woods.  You cannot get those realistic displays via green screen and CGI.  Being in a room like Saw 1 makes everything seem tight and close up.  The shots in Friday the 13th are the same way.  In tight and close up.  With a green screen you are going for a big shot where the viewer is set back.  Good horror has makes you feel like you are in the room while it is happening.

That is why big horror will not work.  

[Kuetsar]

1 hour ago, Niners Fan in CT said:

Shutter Island had a production budget of $80M and then whatever else for advertising but it made close to $300M worldwide in it's box office run and then probably tacked on more in profits for DVD/BR sales and television rights so that's one success of a bigger budget horror flick although I'm not sure I agree with it being classified as horror? 

The new 'Rings' movie looks like it cost more than it should.  I wonder what the budgets on the Final Destinations were. Obviously those were hits too.

I'd say Shutter Island is more mystery or thriller than horror.. . . .

[Reed]

20 hours ago, Kevin Wilson said:

Mel Gibson recently gave a long interview, and I don't have the link at the moment, where he said he didn't understand how movies were so expensive. But he doesn't typically use green screens, so he admitted that using them and adding stuff later may cost more than he realizes. I get the appeal of the green screen as it allows them to add whatever they want and change it later if they want, but it seems to really jack up the cost.

CGI looks worse than special effects too, if we're honest.

I remember watching Iron Man 2 and, at a certain point, thinking: "Um, aren't I just watching a cartoon now?"

[J.T.]

9 hours ago, evilwaldo said:

That is why big horror will not work.  

Alien worked, World War Z kinda worked, and that's about it. 

It is no mystery how the success of horror films is inversely proportionate to the budget.

When you are free to put your vision on screen without having your feet held to the fire by studio execs using money as a leash, shit tends to work out just fine.

[RIPPA]

10 hours ago, Niners Fan in CT said:

The new 'Rings' movie looks like it cost more than it should.  I wonder what the budgets on the Final Destinations were. Obviously those were hits too.

Final Destination - $23 Million (Worldwide Gross - $122.8 Million)

2 - $26 Million (Worldwide Gross - $90.4 Million)

3 - $25 Million (Worldwide Gross $117.7 Million)

4 aka THE - $40 Million (Worldwide Gross - $186 million)

5 - $40 Million (Worldwide Gross - $157.8 million)

 

[J.T.]

This list of the Top 10 Highest Grossing Horror Movies from 2012 to 2014 is even more telling.

The budget for the #1 movie (World War Z) is only $2.5 Million less than the combined budgets of #8 to #20.

[evilwaldo]

2 hours ago, J.T. said:

Alien worked, World War Z kinda worked, and that's about it. 

It is no mystery how the success of horror films is inversely proportionate to the budget.

When you are free to put your vision on screen without having your feet held to the fire by studio execs using money as a leash, shit tends to work out just fine.

Aliens is more dystopic science fiction than horror.

World War Z more like comedy when you consider the source material.  South Park did a better job telling the story than the movie.

[J.T.]

48 minutes ago, evilwaldo said:

Aliens is more dystopic science fiction than horror.

World War Z more like comedy when you consider the source material.  South Park did a better job telling the story than the movie.

The very first Alien movie is totally a monster movie masquerading as a science fiction movie and there is nothing terribly comedic about the first twenty minutes of WWZ other than the idea of Brad Pitt being married to a frumpy looking Mirelle Enos.

[odessasteps]

Do we know what is the highest budgeted "horror" movie is?