Boxoffice analysis 2003

Cafe Society
1

http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2003&p=.htm

Here is the list of top films at the US boxoffice for the year so far. ROTK will probably end up at the top in a couple of months since its 2004 boxoffice will be counted in 2003.

What are the trends? Who are the big winners and losers?

One trend is the utter domination of fantasy films defined broadly(including science-fiction and superhero films). The top 8 films fall under this category. It could have been the top 10 if the Hulk had performed a bit better. These kind of films have been doing very well since Star Wars but I don’t think they have ever been this dominant. I suspect their dominance will continue as special effects get better and better.

Another trend is that quality seems to have been rewarded at the very top. The top three are films ROTK, Finding Nemo and POTC are all quality films which are models of what big-budget blockbusters should be like. X-men 2 is another fine film which was rewarded at the box-office. Let’s hope that Hollywood pays attention and tries to make more such films.

Box-office winners:
Pixar: they have continued their amazing run of financial success with yet another massive hit: the biggest-grossing animated film of all-time.

Johnny Depp and Jim Carrey: Bruce Almighty was basically a Carrey vehicle and Depp played a huge role in the success of POTC.

Box-office losers:
Tom Cruise: Last Samurai which probably won’t make 100 million was disappointing.

Hand-drawn animation: Brother Bear did OK but Sinbad was a big flop. When you consider the massive flop of Treasure island, big-budget hand-drawn animation probably doesn’t have much of a future in the US. Especially when you compared to the phenomenal success of CG animated films.

2

It was nice to see some quality in the top 10 and the happenstance of hype garner to the top B.O.

Bad Boys 2 made 138 million
Matrix III made 137 million

at number 9 and 10 respectively. Not bad considering the previous Matrixes made $171 and $281 million respective to the chronollogy. Maybe the populace can be swayed a bit from the hype. Maybe they were just still reeling from Godzilla ::shudder:: :slight_smile:

Also is Adam Sandler’s hackneyed style finally taking a dive from its own studio support? It took $135 mil domestically and $65 mil foreign (cough cough low). The thing took $110 mil to make and get out! Someone ought to at least put a cap on his no-special effects movie financial pits!

Neat year at the movies overall.

3

With respect to quality, it was a relatively encouraging year. But what I find most interesting is that the judgement criteria for blockbusters has moved to a totally new frame of reference from just five or so years ago. Movies like Hulk and Charlie’s Angel’s 2 are now considered duds even though they took in over a hundred million in the United States alone. It used to be that any movie which got that much was considered a hit. Nowadays, all of the major blockbusters have budgets in the range of 130-170 million dollars, so you really need a huge opening to be profitable.

4

Yeah. But studios never really make that much money on blockbusters, because of the ridiculously high production costs. On the other hand, take a look at the first Scary Movie. It cost a whopping $20 million to produce and grossed $149 million. That’s the kind of stuff studios love. Unfortunately the end result is pieces of shit like the endless Scary Movie sequels.

5

“Movies like Hulk and Charlie’s Angel’s 2 are now considered duds even though they took in over a hundred million in the United States alone.”
Both these films made less in the US than they cost so it’s not surprising they are considered disappointing especially since IIRC the studio gets only about half of what the film earns at the US boxoffice.

BTW one of the interesting trends of the year was the move to release a sequel soon after the original. Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions and then Kill Bill. We will have to wait till Kill Bill 2 to see how this strategy works. Matrix Revolutions did relatively poorly but this may have more to do with the general disappointment with Reloaded rather the two-part strategy per se. If Kill Bill 2 does well, more studios may use this strategy in the future. Making a big film and cutting it into two or three parts is a good way of keeping costs manageable. Of course LOTR is also a successful example of this strategy even though the films were released with one-year intervals.

6

I’d like to see those movies’ marketing budgets and see how closely the earnings correlate with the amount of money spent on marketing.
Random thoughts:

I was stunned to see how much Bruce Almighty made! I hope that means Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind will make a bundle.

25 movies pulled in over $100 mil., but #1 took in over twice as much as #7. Is this an average distribution?

I saw dozens of movies in the theaters this year, but I only saw three of the top ten and six of the top fifty!

7

If you click on the individual movies on the list you can find estimates of marketing costs. Typically they are about 30-40 million for the blockbusters. I don’t think there is much variation in the marketing budgets for the top 15 or so films.

8

I hope that COLD MOUNTAIN makes enough $ to atone for LAST SAMURAI & MASTER AND COMMANDER’S disappointing grosses. (Neither was a flop by any stretch, but neither were they blockbusters.)

It seems that there are far more sequels/installments in the listings than usual (including half of the top 10 grossers). I wonder if we’re going to see tons more “series” being filmed; Kay Scarpatta and the residents of Discworld might be coming to a screen at last.

(I can’t believe how much BRINGING DOWN THE HOUSE grossed when it was sooo lame and wasted two great talents; basically it’s “He’s white and uptight… she’s black and cool… when they meet it’s gonna be wacky, wacky wacky… and might I add, zany!”)

9

Finding Nemo should get the Best Picture Oscar, because it’s the only Oscar-worthy movie you can take the entire familiy to see. :slight_smile:

10

It is very seldom that I rent a DVD and turn if off because it is too horrible. Two Fast, Two Furious was one of those. It was wretched, but considering the first was fairly good, I was kind of surprised the second was that bad. Shut it off after about 15 minutes.

Sequels from big hits open big…and idiots like me plunk down some bucks, either in the theater or at the local Hollywood Video to see what one would expect to be a continuation of “the magic”. But that is what the studios are hoping. Idiots like me who will go/rent the film based on the popularity of the first.

Some franchises, like James Bond, are destined to become hits simply because you know what to expect.

As far as a trend…I think there is no such thing, or one studio would figure it out and have no bombs (Gigli). LOTR was a hit. So is Harry Potter. Will there suddenly be a bunch of films from episodic books? Most likely.

Matrix, Kill Bill and LOTR are examples of a new wave of episodic films that get that audience hooked and running to the next part.
Old timers remember Flash Gordon episodes, and then there is the Indiana Jones series, and…

Well, if I were a betting man, I would puruse the local book shops, see what is a hit series, and buy the rights.

Fill in the blank…that is the next blockbuster.

But let’s not forget “My Big Fat Greek Wedding”…came out of nowhere, cost pennies and made millions.

If anyone reading this can successfully predict the next trend, move to Hollywood and become rich beyond your wildest dreams.

I mean, who’da thunk Finding Nemo?

11

“As far as a trend…I think there is no such thing, or one studio would figure it out and have no bombs (Gigli).”
Trend doesn’t mean a sure-fire formula. You still have to make a good film.

In any case the trend has been in the direction of fantasy/science-fiction films for 25 years. What’s notable this year is their utter dominance. In the past you might have a Star Wars film or ET at the top but there would be several regular comedies or dramas in the top ten. This year these kind of films occupy 9 out of the top 10. I think that is a first.

“I mean, who’da thunk Finding Nemo?”
It would be a brave man to ever bet against Pixar. Still I think few people expected Nemo to be such a massive hit. Expectations were probably around the 250 million mark like Monsters Inc or Shrek.

12

Gigli (#136) made an average of about $2,739 at each of its 2,215 theaters. That’s the equivalent of, what, two or three full houses? :smack:

13

You were right, CP, the marketing budgets for the top ten were all in the $35 million (Elf) to $50 million (Matrix Reloaded) range.

14

Having seen Pixar’s movie for next year, I am thinking that if there is ever a time to bet against them it would be now.

I think it will make money, but nothing like <i>Finding Nemo</i> or <i>Toy Story</i>. More like <i>A Bug’s Life</i>.

It intentionally plays to older kids, and will end up with a PG rather than G rating.

15

According to an article in The New York Times Magazine (Nov. 9 if my memory is working) the costs associated with the three LotR movies were $330 million production and $210 million worldwide marketing.

16

How about our crystal ball?

If I had told a movie exec 12-27-02 that NEMO and PIRATES would be 1-2 I think I would surprise him and he would have nodded and smiled politely while pushing the emergency button to call security.

The Matrices, ROTK, X2, T3 being top 10 wouldn’t surprise him – right?

Hulk (esp.), Angels, and Samauri (I think) would be unpleasant surprises, not quite to expectations. Right?

Elf, BB2, making top 10 would, I think, be pleasent surprises.

I was unaware tha Bruce did so well, as vibrotronica already said. 2nd biggest surprise to me that S.W.A.T. beat Legally Blonde, Cat in The Hat, Angels and Master and commander it really surprises me because it seemed , to me, to come and go with little fanfare.

Great link (& thread) thanks

17

I think what Nemo and POTC had in common was good writing and a great sense of fun. Audiences obviously responded to that. I haven’t seen Elf but from the reviews it seems to have the same kind of good-natured fun going for it.
By contrast the Hulk was way too serious (and not in a particularly good way) to become a huge hit.

The Matrix movies were also hurt by the leaden scripts. I think Reloaded made money on sheer hype but it was disappointing enough to hurt Revolutions quite badly. And in relation to the hype and expectations Reloaded itself probably performed a little below expectations.

18

What I hope is to come of all this is that scripts will have to be written better. All of the glitz in the world doesn’t make a movie good or even popular. Look at ‘Hulk’. Not a good or even entertaining movie. The Matrix movies were widely disappointing. On the other hand, entertaining scripts (“Pirates” was surprisingly good) and good source material (Lord of the Rings) seems to be winning the day.

I think the days of CGI carrying cruddy movies that do spectacularly are coming crashing down. Ultimately, it’s no longer novel and what is really important is a good plot and characters or a good sense of humor.