My Studios

I think I finally found the words on why 10,000 B.C., no matter how bad it is, needs to do well. Because it's budget is estimated at 75 million,

Since when does the American public care how much money was spent on a movie. Have you ever heard a movie-goer say "Well they spent so much money making the damn thing, I better go see it or they might not make a profit! Come on kids get in the van!" Personally, I've never heard this, or anything like it. People see movies because they appeal to them, not because of how much money is spent on them. 10,000 BC is going to be the biggest flop of the year(so far), ceiling 60 million, as I said in the other thread.

Wow, this poll is looking completely one sided, it looks an even bigger certainty than Javier Bardem was to win the Best Supporting Actor Oscar. Suprised there is very little support for Semi-Pro, I guess everyone is expecting it to do well, just nowhere near Horton's figures.

I said Horton Hears A Who as well, but it could very well be Semi-Pro or 10,000 B.C, and dare I say it, 10,000 B.C has a better chance IMO than Semi-Pro. Semi-Pro's R rating will hurt it big time. Opening's looking in the $30-$35 million range. 10,000 B.C could do anything from $15 million to even $50 million, anything's possible with this one. Now anytime a movie has a global opening, we know it SHOULD be big. Of course, people are writing of as a flop, but I think it could do something special. Probably not better than Horton, but still quite a healthy gross. Write it of at your own peril, and your FM slates' peril I say...

silversurfer19 wrote:

Look at Pirates last year. It needed to be the BIGGEST film ever to justify its budget. It did not get that. Although it made a lot of money, it did not meet expectations

I totally disagree. You of all people should know silversurfer, that U.S gross is often only 1/3 of the picture when it comes to MAJOR blockbuster. POTC3 was the highest grossing film of 2007 OVERALL. It came 4th domestically in the U.S (behind SM3, Shrek 3 & Transformers) BUT 1st internationally ($5 million more than the global juggernaut known as Harry Potter, almost $100 million more than SM3, $175 million more than Shrek 3 and more than $250 million more than Transformers. So when you add it ALL UP WORLDWIDE, Pirates was the highest grosser of 2007. You could hardly say that's not meeting expectations...

10,000 B.C, even if it flops like people say it will, will still justify it's budget by succeeding worldwide. Look at The Golden Compass...

I think this year is going to pale in comparison to last year's box office. there will be no 300, nor even a Wild Hogs or Ghost Rider. NO film will break 100 before Iron Man. MY predictions are:

Horton: 90 mil
Semi Pro: 80 mil
Cloverfield: 80mil
Nim: 75 mil
27 Dresses: 75 mil

annyonggob888 wrote:

I said Horton Hears A Who as well, but it could very well be Semi-Pro or 10,000 B.C, and dare I say it, 10,000 B.C has a better chance IMO than Semi-Pro. Semi-Pro's R rating will hurt it big time. Opening's looking in the $30-$35 million range. 10,000 B.C could do anything from $15 million to even $50 million, anything's possible with this one. Now anytime a movie has a global opening, we know it SHOULD be big. Of course, people are writing of as a flop, but I think it could do something special. Probably not better than Horton, but still quite a healthy gross. Write it of at your own peril, and your FM slates' peril I say...

silversurfer19 wrote:

Look at Pirates last year. It needed to be the BIGGEST film ever to justify its budget. It did not get that. Although it made a lot of money, it did not meet expectations

I totally disagree. You of all people should know silversurfer, that U.S gross is often only 1/3 of the picture when it comes to MAJOR blockbuster. POTC3 was the highest grossing film of 2007 OVERALL. It came 4th domestically in the U.S (behind SM3, Shrek 3 & Transformers) BUT 1st internationally ($5 million more than the global juggernaut known as Harry Potter, almost $100 million more than SM3, $175 million more than Shrek 3 and more than $250 million more than Transformers. So when you add it ALL UP WORLDWIDE, Pirates was the highest grosser of 2007. You could hardly say that's not meeting expectations...

I still believe it did not meet expectations. Yes, it did make a lot of money, but not what everyone was expecting. POT3 was predicted a total US BO of $400million, and that was a very realistic prediction. It was thought it was gonna be the 2nd biggest earner of all time. However, it fell massively short, only grossing $309 million. Thats $91 million short. As far as Im concerned, that is a dissapointment. The studio spent at least $300 million on the movie, not to include advertising etc. I think the studio would have expected a bigger income.

And of course I know about international markets, but still, even though it was the top earner of last year, if your theory of US box office ratios is correct, it underperformed. If its US figures should be 1/3 of its BO takings, and going by its $400 million prediction, it should have made $1.2 billion. It actually made $950 million. That is one hell of a shortfall. As far as Im concerned, POT3 did not meet expectations, it needed to be huge, and I mean collosus. It was only big.

I think the same can be said about 10,000BC, far too much is needed for this to be a success. A film should not need to be a success.

numbersix, I think your grosses are a little on the slim side. Add 15-20 million to Horton and maybe 10 to Semi Pro, and I think that is a more realistic target. Horton is going to do very well. If you compare it to last year's figures for Meet the Robinsons, it is coming out the same time of year and that made $97 million. And that was not very good. I think this will appeal to kids more than that, so over $100million is a definate.

There won't be a 300 or Wild Hogs etc, this year, you are right there. But I think last year was a bit on an anomaly, it is not usual to have February films do $200million.

silversurfer19 wrote:

And of course I know about international markets, but still, even though it was the top earner of last year, if your theory of US box office ratios is correct, it underperformed. If its US figures should be 1/3 of its BO takings, and going by its $400 million prediction, it should have made $1.2 billion. It actually made $950 million. That is one hell of a shortfall. As far as Im concerned, POT3 did not meet expectations, it needed to be huge, and I mean collosus. It was only big.

If that's the case, I must be outta my mind...

If people were expecting POTC3 to make at least $400 million, then well, that's a serious miscaluation. I know POTC2 made around $420 million, and yes, compared to POTC2, domestically At World's End seems a disappointment. Let me firstly say, AWE actually made more internationally than DMC, it was just the U.S gross that was disappointing. But overall, you were expecting $1.2 billion worldwide? Mate, that would have made it the 2nd most successful film of all time, behind the mighty Titanic, and ahead of the only 2 other $1 billion grossers, ROTK & DMC itself.

Basically I think people were just expecting too much from At World's End, at least domestically. If you look at it this way, Dead Man's Chest is a discrepancy, a freak occurence if you will, spurred on by great critical reception for COTBP and a craving for more Pirates. There's no way anyone can say AWE was disappointing, and there should NEVER be any expectations for a film to reach $1 billion, let alone $1.2 billion. $961 million is an awesome figure-5th of all time, and that is an amazing achievement in itself. If people were expecting a rise on DMC's incredible figure, you may have well forecast AWE threatening Titanic's record (which was never going to happen). Of course, this is with retrospect I say all of this...

I agree totally with what you say anny, and I think it did do very well, but I seriously thought, and many others did also, I presume, that POTC3 would be the 2nd biggest film of all time. The fact that it did not achieve that, and more so did not top the figures of POTC2 leads me to believe it did not meet expectations. Maybe expectations were too hgh, but ROTK was the 3rd and final part of LOTR, and so was the highest grosser in the trilogy. Therefore, I expected the same of POTC3. It did not happen. Do doubt it did very well, especially internationally, just not as well as would be expected.

My guess is that the biggest movie of January will be 27 Dresses, the biggest movie of February will be Semi-Pro, the biggest movie of March will be Horton, and the biggest movie of April will be Forgetting Sarah Marshall. Again, just my guess.

I also think you guys are forgetting Sarah Marshall. It won't come close to Horton, but it will definitely do very well.

Seriously, what is it about Sarah Marshall that makes everyone thinks it will do that well. We are talking the top couple of films before May, and this movie is being bandied around as competition to Horton and Semi-Pro. Give me a break.

silversurfer19 wrote:

Seriously, what is it about Sarah Marshall that makes everyone thinks it will do that well. We are talking the top couple of films before May, and this movie is being bandied around as competition to Horton and Semi-Pro. Give me a break.

Who said it was competition to Horton or Semi-Pro? It's not even on the poll up there. All I was saying was that it will be the biggest film of April. It won't come close to Horton. Also, the reason I think it will do well is because of Judd Apatow. He produced 40 Year Old Virgin ($109 million), Talledega Nights ($148 million), Knocked Up ($149 million), and Superbad (121 million), and three of those were without much starpower, if any. I think Walk Hard just came out against too much competition, with NT2, Charlie Wilson, Sweeney Todd, and P.S. I Love You all coming out that same day, Juno expanding to wide release that day, and the second weekend of 2 $200 million+ grossers.

Well i would predict Leatherheads and Nim's Island to both do better than Sarah Marshall. To what extent has Judd Apatow actually got anything to do with this movie. I think he is only producing it. So he isnt directing or writing it. Two of his most successful movies have been ones he has written and directed, namely Knocked Up and 40 Year Old Virgin. Talledega Nights relied heavily on Will Ferrell for its BO, and Superbad came out in the summer. I just see this going the same way as Walk Hard.

geezer9687 wrote:

Frisky I'm sorry but have you lost your God damned mind?

What's with such the strong reaction? My gosh, how many holes are in your wall, man? Please go to my original post and look at the very first line. (Go read it, now).

I'll presume you're having trouble reading it, so it said, "Can we answer none of them?" What do you get from that statement?

I won't reargue my reasons, but I think the obvious choice is "Horton". Any jackhole with a pulse read that, even though there've been fewer ads for that than for most DVDs.

I was just stating the breakout potential of one of the films not listed (as of that posting) in "21". It'll be PG-13 and though I think the poker phenomenon has peaked its interest, it's still going strong. Not only that, there's a whole generation of teens playing online and in each other's homes with what money they have (which is quite a bit, somehow). They have had a strong marketing campaign and some stars on the way up with a decent plot and a proven director, though not in the genre.

"Semi-Pro" will make some mulah, but it doesn't have a proven director. It opens a week from a huge PG-13 film that looks bad (which in the U.S. automatically makes it #1 the week of its release). And, "Semi-Pro" is rated-R. For those of you who think that that rating won't effect it, you obviously haven't worked at a theater. Plus, I think Ferrell has a built-in ceiling that comes with his built-in audience. My brother will see Ferrell read the eulogy of Colonial Sanders naked, while I'd pay big money not to.

I know you just wanted someone else adding something to the conversation besides, "I think Horton will win, Semi-Pro looks awesome!"

By asking if we can answer none of them, it assumes that either Cloverfield would stay on top, or something else would beat every one of them. I just saw an ad today for Horton on Comedy Central of all places. I am sure it is running in constant rotation on Nickelodeon, as was previously mentioned. And you do realize that 21 has nothing to do with poker right? It is based on a true story about kids from MIT that could count cards at blackjack really well. Poker and blackjack are completely different things. As one of those teens playing online and in each other's homes every single day, I can tell you that we know the difference between poker and blackjack. And wasn't "Lucky You" supposed to be about poker last year? Look how that turned out. That said, I am still interested in seeing 21. I hope it does well. I just don't think it belongs in the conversation.

I'm sorry if I came across as mean, but I just thought the statement was so ridiculous that it required a strong reaction. But I do apologize, hope there is no bad blood.

I think Prom Night has potential. Nelson McCormick has some pretty impressive television experience that I think will translate onto film and could result in some pretty good word of mouth a la Disturbia. It won't have an amazing OW maybe $15-20 mil. but I see it hanging around for a bit. Could make $50mil.

My Studios

ADVICE & ANALYSIS: