Why pull movies that aren't making money at the box office?

Why do studios pull movies out of the theater after only a week or two run?

It seems most of the money studios have to spend would have already been spent by the time box office tallies start rolling in. So…why pull them from the screen? I mean if you’ve spend 90 million making a movie, why would you stop showing it after two weeks even if it has only made 10 million or so? Wouldn’t it be better financially to allow it to continue playing so that you get closer to the break even point? Surely even a dog of a film could make another 5 or 10 million if allowed a few more weeks of play.

And if the answer is the cost of promoting the film, couldn’t you just stop running the radio/television/magazine ads (which you’ll have to do if it stops playing anyway) and still let it garner money from people who just show up at the theater, see the poster, and decide to watch it?

Help me make sense of this.

Rainy

Because the studios aren’t the only ones trying to make money. The theatre owners would like to make some as well and want to get a movie in their theatres that will actually attract people. SInce they make the majority of their money off concession sales, they need people on the theatre. The decision to discontinue a movie is usually made by the theatre owner and not the studio…

First of all, IANASSE (I Am Not A Soulless Studio Executive) but as far as I understand it…

The law of returns on cinematic releases dictates that the studio receives the largest percentage of the box office take within the first two weeks of release. It’s something of a sliding scale – the longer a movie is being shown, the more that scale starts to tip towards the theater, until at last they begin to see the largest percentage of the gross.

In many cases, the studio isn’t doing the theater any favors by occupying the screen with their piece of dreck, and the chances of a bigger chunk of money for anyone starts to diminish after the 2nd week of release, anyway. So, rather than keep it in the theater (which probably doesn’t help anyone, anyway) they will yank it. Instead, they’ll focus their efforts on overseas release, and the home video market.

Again, I’m not an expert, but that’s why I thought this happened. Maybe someone else can either concur or offer a differing explanation.

There are a very finite number of movie screens out there. Perhaps the distributor would rather have a movie that people actually want to pay to see on those screens, instead of one that makes mere pennies.

As I understand it, the theaters play a role in this decsion, too. Let’s face it, a theater isn’t going to keep showing something that’s not making them any money when they could use that screen to show something that will make money.

WAG.

Marketing. You had it correct the first time.

It’s all about making money *now[/]. If the fans don’t flock in the door from the getgo the film gets yanked. Pity, too.

When I lived in Oz we regularly saw twofers in the local movie theatre - a current, top-rated first-run movie along with a current B movie. And at the price below the cost of just the top-rated movie downtown in the big name chain theatre. We saw some quality B flicks, with top-rated actors in them, that just never made the cut for the short attention span decision-makers.

Lots of reasons.

  1. Nowadays, the dropoff after opening week is severe even with successful films. If it makes $10 in two weeks, it’ll make something like $2 million the next week (if they’re lucky), and less than a million the next.

  2. Studios get their biggest cut of opening week profits, so a weak draw means less money for them each week.

  3. In addition, if the theater is empty, the theater owners aren’t making much money on the film, either, even with the bigger cut. Better to replace it with a film that will bring in the crowds.

  4. Ads are still required. It’s unlikely someone going to see movie A will switch to movie B at the theater; you need to bring them in somehow.

  5. After the first week, word of mouth is what keeps a film going. If the film flops and gets bad word of mouth, there’s no way the theater will make anything on the showings.

So the best strategy is to cut your losses and try to make your budged back on the DVDs.

A pal of mine ran a drive in. It’s all about concession sales.

In fact, a packed drive in isn’t really what he wanted. He wanted a good mix of kids and parents. More concession sales that way. If he filled the place with, say, a foreign film, concession sales would be in the toilet.

BTW: I recall his best double feature for concession sales was, at the time, Dennis the Menace and the Fugitive.

I think the people who say it’s because the theatre owners need to make money have it right. In High Point they have a “2 Dollar Theatre”. Admission price, 2 dollars, they always show good movies there, not always first run but really great classics or very popular movies from a few months back, never any dogs. I guess if you only charge 2 bucks to get in you’ve got have people going to the snack bar to make a profit and people aren’t gonna pay even 2 dollars to see a film that sucks.

All very good points. I guess I got caught up in the word “pulled.” You always hear about a movie being “pulled” which makes me think the studios were the instigators instead of the theater owners.

Great discussion, though, carry on. I had never heard about the sliding scale of studio percentage versus theater.

It’s why theatres and not studios are particularly pleased by sleeper hits that generate a lot of word-of-mouth business. One of the more prominent examples was “The Full Monty,” which became more popular as the weeks wore on, and the theatres loved it, because as every week went by, they had to turn smaller and smaller percentages over to the studios.

Why is there a sliding scale in the first place? Couldn’t some of these problems be avoided by sharing profits equally?

> 5. After the first week, word of mouth is what keeps a film
> going. If the film flops and gets bad word of mouth, there’s
> no way the theater will make anything on the showings.

> So the best strategy is to cut your losses and try to make
> your budged back on the DVDs.

And, I think, these two concepts are related. If the movie hangs out in theatres too long, and gets a continual amount of bad press, it won’t sell very many copies of the DVD six months down the road.

Whereas, if you pull the movie before the talk about your movie gets really bad, you can probably salvage something decent out of the DVD sales.

Given time, people may forget the bad press about a movie after it was released and just remember the funny previews they saw before the movie was released.

The foregoing answers are correct. The distributor (movie studio) takes 70-80% of the box office on opening weekend, sliding downward to around 20-25% after a period of some weeks, with the exhibitor (theater) taking the remainder plus certain exceptions for infrastructure and overhead. These figures will vary from movie to movie.

Thus it behooves nobody to leave a stinker on the screen. The distributor has already made most of what it’s going to make after seven or ten days, even if the movie doesn’t fall off by 50% in the second weekend like most big studio movies do these days. And as far as the distributor is concerned, 20% of an opening-weekend take of (say) $10M is bigger than 75% of a four-weeks-later take of $1M, especially when you consider that their primary source of revenue, concession income, has (using those numbers) dropped to 10% of opening weekend.

In addition, it costs money to keep physical prints in circulation. The quality of these prints degrade over time, and eventually become unplayable. A successful movie is something of a mixed blessing, because the prints may or may not be usable when the movie opens overseas, and making additional copies gets expensive. But if the movie is a stinker, the prints are withdrawn quickly so they can be recycled into those other markets, and new ones don’t have to be struck.

The other observations are also correct. A movie that acquires a stink in the cinema will be harder to move on video. A movie that has staying power, called “legs” in industry parlance, will play forever because it is in the exhibitors’ favor to do so (examples: Titanic, Sixth Sense, There’s Something About Mary, Big Fat Greek Wedding).

The discount houses mentioned by Wheel usually get their prints on a flat fee, rather than on a percentage basis, because the “prime period” for the movie has already passed, and the title may well be available on home video. That’s why the ticket price is so low; it’s almost all profit for the exhibitor (albeit a slim one).

As far as why the sliding scale exists at all, it’s because the studios have a virtual monopoly on film product, and get to set the terms; the exhibitors don’t make their own movies and must rely on the distributors for product. The studios have found that taking 80% of 80% over the first two weekends is far more reliable in terms of revenue forecasting, not to mention the short-term profit model that dominates American business these days, than hoping for 50% over eight or more weekends. It’s also a control issue; studio executives are notorious for “bigger dick” mentality, and just want to be in charge. And further, Hollywood lives and dies by precedent: If one person does something, everybody else feels entitled to it. So when one massively anticipated movie permits its distributor to dictate newly draconian terms, the bar is set for future movies. Over time, we wind up with the weirdly skewed system we see today.

Well, I was about to link to this article on Cervaise’s fascinating website, but I see he’s beat me to the punch with his own comments.

Something else: Whenever there is a double feature both films have to be from the same distributor, UNLESS they are “Running Flats” (paying a flat rate).

Can’t split the percentages otherwise.

I remember when Lethal Weapon 3 came out, 90% went to the distributor. (First week)

Funny thing: In a few one-horse-towns, some theatres are the only game in town. With no one to “play them against”, they only have to pay 30-40% of the box, even in opening week. (assumming there is a print)

This particular place was a drive in, and drive in prints are LIGHTER than regular prints, so if you have a DI print, and, it has to go somewhere this week, or nowhere, you take the 30-40% deal.

Fascinating.

It also is a largely reputation thing. If Ben Affleck keeps getting panned and people are ABLE to see he was awful, they are less likely to see his next flick. If they just HEAR he was awful, they will give him a chance.

A lot of movies sell simply by star power.

Also a lot of bombs at the box office become cult hits and do quite well on video.