I read an article recently about how many Hollywood movies that do little at the box office end up profitable due to DVD sales/rentals. Donny Darko was a very good example, I saw it at the movies but not one other person I know (apart from my son who went with me) did - several of them now own it on DVD.
I mentioned this to someone today and said I would get some examples. Well I can’t find any authoritative site. Even IMDB’s top selling DVDs simply links to Amazon flogging them.
Surely someone lists the facts, just the facts mam?
I’m not sure, but I believe ShowBizData.com has that sort of information. I know I have seen it before, and I used to have a subscription to ShowBizData for work reasons. Unfortunately, it’s a pay site (at least for the good stuff).
The problem you have in finding access to that information is that it’s really valuable data for people to have, and putting it together takes some effort. As a result, the people who have the data are able to charge for access to it.
One other way to go would be to look for studio press releases or financial reports. Those may have reference to total sales/rental figures (although you should bear in mind that the studios, AFAIK, do not make money from the rental itself, but from selling a higher-priced copy to the rental outfits).
I found some articles by googling “movies box office vs dvd sales.”
The impression I get is that the studio makes more from the DVD sales than from the box office. I think I saw in one article in the New York Times that the domestic US box office represented only 20% of the revenues for some movies (as opposed to DVD/video sales, foreign box office, premium cable/satellite fees, broadcast television fees, product placement, etc.) Unfortunately, the NYTimes archives aren’t free.
I think it was a recent Bond film where the production cost was covered before the movie was even released, what with the product placement fees.
Well, not quite what you’re looking for, but semi-related nonetheless, even though this was prior to DVDs:
Austin Powers (the first one) did horribile in theaters. However, when it was re-aired on TV and released on VHS, the movie finally found a sizeable market, which is what allowed the sequel to be made.
Are you sure about this? I remember the first Austin Powers movie as being pretty popular upon its theatrical release (it showed locally for ages), although I’m sure it did make a lot of money in video rentals as well.
Hmm, you may be right. I checked IMDB and its budget was 17 million and it earned 54 million.
What I reported above is what I remember of a news segment a few years back. It’s possibile I may be remembering incorrectily, but I’m 99% certain that that is what they said. Very odd…
Just found a link which supports the original news story I heard.
“1997’s Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery was that rare movie that did so-so in its theatrical release but then found a huge audience on video and became a big sensation.”
-IGN DVD http://dvd.ign.com/articles/037/037036p1.html (first paragraph)
Should have included this in the previous post, but I’m an idiot.
Anyways, it seems I may have just mis-remembered the “horribile” part, but from what I’ve seen, “so-so” may just as well be “horribile” when it comes to movie studio executives.
So did The Princess Bride. And I think it’s going to be more common in the future, as there are a lot more people like me who can’t be bothered going to cinemas anymore, and would much rather watch all their entertainment in the home.
As I understand it from the Movies buyers at work, (online retailer) most movies make more in DVD sales than in ticket sales. Even the big ones, like Finding Nemo. Ticket sales are a pretty good predictor of DVD sales, though – big movies tend to sell well, smaller movies tend to sell not-so-well.
I believe that smaller movies are more likely to exceed expectations, as in the Austin Powers example, or Buckaroo Banzai. ‘Cult’ movies are particularly good in that regard.