Box office report (07/30/07)…

Last week, when I saw the $34 million pulled in by the lame looking Chuck & Larry, I thought, “Well, that’s good news for the Simpsons movie.”  Turns out I was right.  The studios love when the early summer movies are successful, partly because the entire summer depends on kids—the demographic that drives the summer blockbuster season (and I mean ‘kids’ as mostly those in the teen bracket)—to drive the box office.  If kids go to movies in the early summer, and are reasonable satisfied by them, they continue going, get in the habit of doing so, and are more likely to continue seeing movies all summer long.  In an age when there are a zillion more entertainment options then when I was a kid, this is all the more important.

Anyway, Chuck and Larry made $34 million, a pretty decent sum.  I figured The Simpsons would do better than that, especially  once the generally positive reviews started coming in.  And sure enough, it did better than the industry expected, pulling in a jolly $72m.  It also rolled up some serious coin overseas, even better than the domestic take,  drawing  and additional $96M .  And it hasn’t even opened in Japan yet.  At this point the $75m production is already in profit, so things look good.  

There was a point where I think people heard about the Simpsons movie and wondered, “Isn’t it a bit late?”  I think in a way this actually helped the film.  Years ago, more people still watched the show, but were increasingly unsatisfied.  I wouldn’t be surprised if many of the people who subsequently stopped watching the program went to the movie with a sense of nostalgia, despite the fact that the show is currently still running.  I’m not saying a lot of the box office wasn’t driven by those still watching the series, but I do think this odd faux-nostalgia might have helped the movie in a way it might not of if it had come out four or five years ago.

Chuck & Larry dropped an OK 44%, drawing $19.1m for a second place finish.  It continued to beat Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, which I found bizarre.  Coming in third with another $17.1m, the fifth Potter movie has obviously still made a lot more money in total, with a domestic gross nearing the $250m mark.  While not the series’ biggest money earner, Phoenix‘s total worldwide gross, soon to pass the $700m mark, is still pretty astounding for the fifth film in a series.  And it did cost nearly half as much as other top grosser this year, the third chapters of Spider-Man and Pirates of the Caribbean.

Hairspray continues to do very well in its limited way.  In its second weekend it dropped 43% to draw another $15.6m, for a total of $60m.  It’s New Line’s top grossing film in two years, and ironically might well make more money than the entire catalog of films made by cult director John Waters, whose earlier Hairspray inspired the musical this is an adaptation of.     

Catherine Zeta-Jones’ No Reservations cooked up a lackluster $12m, a decent but hardly spicy result.   Transformers came next, drawing another $11.5m, for a $285m domestic total.  With the overseas gross nearing the $200m mark, the cumulative $500m should be hit by next week.

Other results:

7th:  Ratatouille, $7.2m
8th: Live Free or Die Hard, $5.2m
9: I Know Who Killed Me (Opening weekend), $3.4m
10:  Who’s Your Caddy? (Opening weekend)  $2.9m

  • You’re right on about the Simpsons. A lot of reviews I read about it started off with “It’s just like a Simpsons episode from the good old days.” Having fan favorites Albert Brooks and James L. Brooks attached to the movie was a brilliant movie akin to having Peter Cullen voice Optimus Prime in the Transformers movie. One day we’re going to look back at the 2007 movie season as the Year of Nostalgia.

    Crap…. All this means is that Gen-Xers like me ARE getting old.

    And you kids get off mah properteh!

  • Ericb

    “While not the series’ biggest money earner, Phoenix’s total worldwide gross, soon to pass the $700m mark, is still pretty astounding for the fifth film in a series”

    While true it’s not a series in the same sense that, say, Spiderman and Pirates are, as each of the the Potter films is based on a preexisting book and so isn’t as subject to the rushed and ragged plots and overstuffing that some of the more improvised series are prone to.

  • Altair IV

    I don’t doubt the Simpsons went over pretty big in Europe and Latin America. It’s just as, if not more, popular in some places than in in the US. But here in Japan it just never caught on that strongly. People know about the show, certainly, but in my experience, there isn’t much of a fan base here. The humor just doesn’t translate very well for one thing, being very western and American culture-centric. A large percentage of the viewers will probably be foreign expats like me. I can’t imagine that the numbers will show more than a small fraction of the total take.

    But then again, I’ve been wrong before.

    I caught a preview of Chuck and Larry on TV here recently and my thought was gawd!, is that a real movie? It looks abominable. Is it just luck that it’s doing so (relatively) well, or is there actually something, you know, good about it? In any case, I can’t imagine actually sitting in a theater for that one. Is it in the black yet? Must’ve been cheap to make in any case.

    In any case, it is true that this is a good year for getting people into the theaters, but I personally don’t think is because the movies themselves are that good. It just seems to me that there are a lot of films this year that pretty much have to be seen in a theater to be appreciated fully. I’ve seen Spider-Man 3 and Pirates 3 already myself, and I’m planning Potter 5 next weekend, mostly because, well, I have to. I’m still debating Shrek 3 and the Transformers though. I was never a big Shrek fan, but again, animation like that loses something on video. Ditto Transformers, which looks like it should be good on the big screen. If it weren’t for the lackluster reviews I’d be considering The Fantastic Four 2 too. Then again, I thought the first one was better than the reviews gave credit for, so who knows.

    I’ve already seen more movies in the theater this year than in all 2006, and we’re only halfway through the year. Sheesh!

  • Ericb

    Oy, now that I’m thinking about it, the last time I saw a movie in a theater was 2003.

  • fish eye no miko

    Ericb said: “While true it’s not a series in the same sense that, say, Spiderman and Pirates are, as each of the the Potter films is based on a preexisting book and so isn’t as subject to the rushed and ragged plots and overstuffing that some of the more improvised series are prone to.”

    Exactly! HP was planned, from day one, to be a seven-book (and thus, movie) series. Most other sequels are based on movies that made a lot of money, so they come up with a story after the fact to make more money. Granted, comic book sequels often have a basis in the comics, as well, but it’s not quite the same thing, I think.

  • BeckoningChasm

    I think some of “Phoenix”‘s drop-off could certainly be attributable to the release of the seventh book only a handful of days later–thus dividing fans’ money between the two.